Rooikat Hydro Power Site - South African Heritage Resources

Transcription

`
Public Review Document
Amended Final Scoping Report for the Proposed Construction of the Rooikat
Hydropower Site and Associated Infrastructure, Orange River, Thembelihle
and Siyancuma Local Municipalities, Northern Cape
DEA Ref. No.: 14/12/16/3/3/2/511
January 2014
View of the Orange River upstream to the proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Luel Culwick
Enviroworks: Mark Day I Reviewed by: Pieter de Villiers
Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Tel +27 (0) 21 853 0682
PO Box 84486
Fax +27 (0) 86 601 7507
Greenside
[email protected]
2193
PO Box 338, Private Bag X15,
Somerset West, 7129
 Enviroworks CC. All Rights Reserved – This document is the intellectual property of Enviroworks CC and the associated client. Unauthorized reproduction or
distribution hereof may result in strict civil and criminal penalties, with violators being prosecuted under law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd (hereafter referred to as Sidala) is a South African based
development company operating in the emergent renewable energy industry. The company
proposes to construct the Rooikat Hydropower Site on the Orange River between Hopetown and
Douglas, which has the potential to generate approximately 22MWin a run of river (ROR) fashion.
This amended Final Scoping Report (FSR) is an update of the former Final Scoping Report dated
October 2013, and has new information included as requested by the Department of Environmental
Affairs in their letter dated 20 January 2014 (Appendix C). A table of these points and their location
in this report is provided for at the end of this Executive Summary. A copy of the letter from the DEA
is given in Appendix J.
The facility will comprise of a weir with a height of approximately 30m (measured from river bottom
to FSL), as well as associated access roads and a 33 kilovolt (kV) power line. The facility is proposed
to have a design flow rate of approximately 100³/s, with an average turbine-generator efficiency of
approximately 85% and capacity output of approximately 22MW. The construction of a weir in the
Orange River will result in the inundation of approximately 14km of riverbank upstream.. The full
supply level of the dam is not more than 1040 metres above sea level (masl) and cover a surface
area of approximately 5.5 km² (550 ha). The dam would be operated to be at full supply level at all
times. During commissioning, it will utilise larger discharges of water during hydropower generation
from the Vanderkloof Dam to raise the water level. As a consequence, a change in the flow regime
during the filling of dams shall be negligible. After filling of the dams, during operation, no change to
the flow regime will occur.
The identification of alternative site locations was determined through investigation of geology,
hydrology (flow duration only), physical properties such as river cross sections, tailwater and area
inundation, site access and hydro potential. An operational period in excess of 60 years would ensue
following construction with feed-in of electricity into Eskom’s national grid.
This amended FSR focuses on identifying the environmental impacts associated with the Rooikat
Hydropower Site, situated on the Orange River between Portion 3 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert
Registration Division (RD)) and Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237 (Hopetown RD). The amended
FSR forms part of a greater Scoping and Full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, which
is subject to the conditions of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of
1998) (NEMA) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of 18 June 2010, as
amended, and supporting guidelines.
Enviroworks (an Independent Environmental Consultancy) was appointed as the project
Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAP) to carry out a Scoping and EIA process, so as to
address the impact of the proposed activity; a practice which entails amongst others site surveys,
scoping of issues and potential impact identification, identifying and describing alternatives,
conducting public participation as well as actual impact assessment and providing mitigatory
measures for these potential impacts.
The following outcomes are intended to be achieved through this amended FSR:


Detail the nature and extent of the activity;
Identify and describe feasible alternatives;
2
AMENDED FINAL SCOPING REPORT l ROOIKAT HYRDOPOWER SITE l JANUARY 2014 l ENVIROWORKS



Identify and describe potential issues linked to the proposed activity; and
Identify specialist studies to be undertaken and their terms of reference
Quantify the level of investigation to be undertaken during the forthcoming EIA process and
provide a Plan of Study (PoS) for the EIA process.
Several factors assisted towards addressing these aims, through the involvement of role-players
such as the project proponent, the engineering consultant, interested and affected parties (I&APs),
stakeholders and specialist consultants.
Coupled to the publishing of this report, a comment period will run concurrently during which time
stakeholders and I&APs have the opportunity to review all documentation and provide comment for
further discussion, examination and integration into the EIA process. These comments, together
with the amended FSR shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for
evaluation and decision-making. If the amended FSR and the PoS for the EIA is accepted by the DEA,
an Environmental Impact Reporting (EIR) process will ensue, which shall comprise a broader study
and the assessment of all identified and anticipated environmental impacts.
The following table details the requested information by the DEA and the location thereof in this
report:
Table 1: Updates made to the Amended FSR
DEA
Rejection
Letter
(NEAS
DEA/EIA/0001781/2013) - Items
Ref: Point number Page
in this report Number
a) Amend listed activities to reflect in amended FSR and 1.8
application form.
b) Address listed activities and their relevant issues:
1.8
18
c) Adequately identify and include a description of
environmental issues and potential impacts, incl.
cumulative impacts.
d) The SR must adequately identify and include a description
of all possible direct and indirect impacts for the preferred
and alternative sites, including other developments in the
area as well as renewable energy and hydro facilities.
e) Provide a detailed description of the needs and desirability,
indicating the need for the development in the region and
the desirability of the location compared to other sites.
f) Provide a detailed description of any identified alternatives
to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable,
including the advantages and disadvantages thereof in
terms of Regulation 28(j) of the EIA Regulations, 2010.
g) Provision of location, dimension and details of the
proposed weir and associated infrastructure in the
amended FSR
h) Issues relating to inundation raised by I&APs need to be
adequately addressed. In addition the current height of
water during both dry and wet seasons needs to be clearly
stated.
i) Address issues raised by the DWA
5.1 – 5.4
59-70
5.1 – 5.4
59-70
1.7
15
3.3
45-50
3.2
38
2.3.2
3.2.1
31
42
2.3.2
32
3
18
j)
The DEA requested that an Aquatic and Terrestrial
Biodiversity Impact Survey be undertaken separately.
k) Adequately identify and describe impacts with regards to
loss of tourism and agriculture.
l) Requirements of PPP must be in accordance with
Regulation 54 to 57 of GNR 543 of the EIA Regulations,
2010.
m) An Agricultural Impact Assessment must form part of the
PoSEIA.
n) A Botanical Impact Assessment must form part of the
PoSEIA. This will form part of the Terrestrial Biodiversity
Impact Survey.
o) A Riparian and Wetland Assessment study is required to be
part of the PoSEIA. This will form part of the Terrestrial
Biodiversity Impact Survey.
p) A Service Impact Assessment study must form part of the
PoSEIA.
q) A Social Impact Assessment must form part of the PoSEIA.
A Socio-economic Impact Assessment is provided.
r) A Cumulative Impact Assessment must form part of the
PoSEIA. Enviroworks will conduct this as part of the EIA
process.
s) The DEA requested that an Avifaunal specialist form part of
the PoSEIA, due to the need for a 132kV overhead
powerline. This report confirms that a powerline of 33kV or
less will be constructed. The Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact
Survey will consider impacts on avifauna.
t) The Hydrological Impact Assessment must account for
water quality, water temperature and oxygen content. This
will be addressed in both this report and the Aquatic
Biodiversity Impact Survey.
u) The specialist study must also take into account the quality
of water entering and leaving the hydro facility.
v) Specialist reports are to be conducted in terms of the
requirements of Regulation 32/(3) of the EIA Regulations,
2010.
w) The Plan of Study must be in accordance with Regulation
28(n) of the EIA Regulations, 2010.
x) Should specialist studies be conducted prior to acceptance
of the PoSEIA, this is done at the applicants own risk. Noted
y) The amended FSR must meet the requirements of the
rejection letter and requirements of Regulation 28 of the
EIA Regulations, 2010. Noted
z) Formatting and the content page must correspond with the
relevant page numbers. Noted
aa) DEA is not a commenting authority, but rather the
Competent Authority. Noted
bb) Provision of a legible A3 Regional Map and site layout plan
with attributes as listed in the rejection letter.
cc) Shapefile of the preferred development layout/footprint
area. To be provided to the DEA.
4
6.1.1.
73-77
5.1.7.
61
2.3
28
6.1.1.
6.1.1
73
6.1.1
73
6.1.1.
80
6.1.1.
77
6.1.1.
80
6.1.1.
74
6.1.1.
81
6.1.1.
81
6.1.1.
72
6
71
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix C
-
-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ 8
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... 9
1.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 11
1.1. Background to the project ............................................................................................................. 11
1.2. Applicant ........................................................................................................................................ 11
1.3. Locality ........................................................................................................................................... 12
1.4. Alternatives considered ................................................................................................................. 12
1.5. Project Description......................................................................................................................... 14
1.6. Farms affected by the proposed development ............................................................................. 14
1.7. Need and Desirability ..................................................................................................................... 15
1.8. NEMA EIA Regulations ................................................................................................................... 19
1.9. Other Legislation, Policy, Plans and Guidelines ............................................................................. 22
1.9.1. National level .............................................................................................................................. 22
1.9.2. Provincial Level ........................................................................................................................... 24
1.9.3. District and Local Level ............................................................................................................... 25
1.10. Environmental Assessment Practitioner...................................................................................... 26
2.
SCOPING PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 28
2.1. Purpose of the Scoping Phase ........................................................................................................ 28
2.2. Steps of the Scoping Phase ............................................................................................................ 28
2.2.1. Planning the scoping procedure ................................................................................................. 28
2.2.2. Stakeholder engagement to identify the key issues ................................................................... 29
2.2.3. Reporting on the terms of reference for the next phase of the assessment ............................. 29
2.3. Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 29
2.3.1. Notification and Registration Process ......................................................................................... 29
2.3.2.
Comments and Responses .................................................................................................... 32
3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................... 40
3.1. A Background on Hydropower ....................................................................................................... 40
3.2. Project Description......................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.1. Site identification and selection.................................................................................................. 43
3.3. Project Alternatives........................................................................................................................ 48
3.3.1. Location Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 48
3.3.2. Design Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.3. Technology Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 51
3.3.4. The No-Go Option ....................................................................................................................... 53
4. BROAD DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................... 54
4.1. Climate ........................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2. Topography .................................................................................................................................... 54
4.3. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 54
4.4. Ecological Status ............................................................................................................................ 54
4.4.1. Terrestrial Ecological Survey ....................................................................................................... 54
4.4.1.1. Terrestrial Habitat .................................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1.2. Fauna........................................................................................................................................ 56
4.4.2. Aquatic Ecological Survey ........................................................................................................... 57
4.4.2.1. Aquatic Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 57
4.4.2.2. In-situ Water Quality................................................................................................................ 58
4.4.2.3. Macro-invertebrate sampling and integrity............................................................................. 58
4.4.2.4. Fish sampling and species community integrity ...................................................................... 58
4.5. Heritage Status............................................................................................................................... 59
4.5.1. Archaeological............................................................................................................................. 59
4.5.2. Paleontological............................................................................................................................ 59
4.6. Visual and Aesthetic Status ............................................................................................................ 60
4.7. Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 60
4.8. Socio-Economic Structure of the Area ........................................................................................... 60
4.8.1. Economic Issues .......................................................................................................................... 60
4.8.2. Social Context ............................................................................................................................. 61
5. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................... 62
5.1. Construction Phase Impacts (Direct and Indirect) ......................................................................... 62
5.1.1. Dust Generation .......................................................................................................................... 62
5.1.2. Erosion and sedimentation of the river and banks ..................................................................... 62
5.1.3. Impacts on river characteristics .................................................................................................. 63
5.1.4. Disturbance of fauna, flora and habitat ...................................................................................... 63
5.1.5. Visual Impact ............................................................................................................................... 64
5.1.6. Impact on Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 64
5.1.7. Recreational and Tourism Impact ............................................................................................... 64
5.1.8. Noise pollution ............................................................................................................................ 64
6
5.1.9. Impact on heritage resources ..................................................................................................... 64
5.1.10. Impact on the local economy.................................................................................................... 65
5.2. Operational Impacts (Direct and Indirect) ..................................................................................... 65
5.2.1. Impacts of the dam on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity ................................................ 65
5.2.2. Impacts of the powerline on avifauana ...................................................................................... 66
5.2.3. Impacts of the dam on aquatic habitat and fish migration ...................................................... 66
5.2.4. Impacts of the dam on agriculture and associated infrastructure ............................................. 66
5.2.5. Impacts of the dam and dam on tourism and recreational uses ................................................ 66
5.2.6. Visual impact of the dam wall and dam...................................................................................... 67
5.2.7. Impact of Noise ........................................................................................................................... 67
5.2.8. Impact of the dam on heritage resources .................................................................................. 67
5.2.9. Impact to the local economy ...................................................................................................... 67
5.2.10. Sedimentation and erosion of the river .................................................................................... 67
5.3. Decommissioning Impacts (Direct and Indirect) ............................................................................ 67
5.3.1. Identified and Described Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 71
5.3.1.1. Resource related impacts ........................................................................................................ 71
5.3.1.2. Ecosystem related impacts ...................................................................................................... 72
5.3.1.3. Human community impacts ..................................................................................................... 72
6. PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE EIA ............................................................................................................ 74
6.1. Description of the tasks to be undertaken during the Environmental Impact Assessment phase 74
6.1.1. Specialist Studies......................................................................................................................... 75
6.1.2. Methodology for Assessment of Potential Impacts.................................................................... 85
6.1.3. Public Participation ..................................................................................................................... 89
6.1.3.1. Consultation on the Draft EIR .................................................................................................. 89
6.1.3.2. Consultation on the Final EIR ................................................................................................... 89
6.2. Communication with the DEA (Competent Authority) .................................................................. 89
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 91
7.1. Way forward .................................................................................................................................. 91
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 92
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 94
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Locality Map (An A3 legible version of this map is included in Appendix C)
Figure 2: Hydropower Formula
Figure 3: Map depicting farms and associated landowners affected by the weir and inundation
Figure 4: Example of a 3D Modelled Hydropower Site similar to the proposed Rooikat
site
Figure 5: The view of the proposed site facing upstream
Figure 6: Renewable Energy projects in the Siyancuma and Thembelihle Local Municipalities
Figure 7: View of the Meerkat and Rooikat Hydropower Sites and associated inundation areas
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Updates made to amended FSR
Table 2: Need and desirability Question and Answers
Table 3: Listed activities triggered by the proposed development
Table 4: Comments and Responses Table
Table 5: Details of the weir and associated infrastructure
Table 6: Location Alternatives
Table 7: Design Alternatives
Table 8: Technology Alternatives
Table 9: List of Renewable Energy Projects in the Thembelihle and Siyancuma Local Municipalities,
Northern Cape
Table 10: Specialist studies to be undertaken and terms of reference thereof
Table 11: Evaluation components, ranking scales and descriptions (criteria)
Table 12: Definition of significance ratings (positive and negative)
Table 13: Example of Impact Assessment Table to be used
Table 14: Stages at which the DEA will be consulted
Table 15: Key Milestones
8
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CIA
Cumulative Impact Assessment
CO₂e
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CRR
Comments and Response Report
DAFF
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
DEA
Department of Environmental Affairs
DEANC
Department of Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation
DM
District Municipality
DMR
Department of Mineral Resources
DoE
Department of Energy
DSR
Draft Scoping Report
DWA
Department of Water Affairs
EAP
Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EMPr
Environmental Management Programme
FSL
Full Supply Level
FSR
Final Scoping Report
Ha
Hectares
HPS
Hydro-power Site
I&APs
Interested and Affected Parties
IDP
Integrated Development Plan
IPP
Independent Power Producer
kV
Kilovolt
LED
Local Economic Development
LM
Local Municipality
LSA
Late Stone Age
MASL
Metres Above Sea Level
9
MSA
Middle Stone Age
MVA
Megavolt ampere
MW
Megawatt
NEMA
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)
NERSA
National Energy Regulator of South Africa
PFS
Pre-feasibility Study
PUC
Point of Utility Connection
PoSEIA
Plan of Study for Environmental Impact Assessment
ROR
Run of River
SAHRA
South African Heritage Resources Agency
SDF
Spatial Development Framework
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VIA
Visual Impact Assessment
WRYCM
Water Resource Yield Computer Model
WULA
Water Use Licence Application
10
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd. (hereafter referred to as Sidala) is a South African based
development company operating in the emergent renewable energy industry. The company
proposes the construction of the Rooikat Hydropower Site on the Orange River between Hopetown
and Douglas, with electricity generation capacity of approximately 22MW.
Sidala intends to develop a hydropower facility to harness the high level of renewable energy
potential of the flows released from the Vanderkloof Dam. To capacitate the South African
Government’s commitment to reduce the countries’ greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a
low-carbon economy, the Department of Energy introduced the Renewable Energy Independent
Power Producer Procurement Programme. The programme was designed to enable the contribution
of renewable energy by independent companies towards a national target of 3 725 megawatts by
2030 (Department of Energy 2012).
Globally, hydropower (both small and large), represents 19% of the world’s electricity production
(Paish 2002: 537). Hydropower facilities generating 10MW or more of electricity are generally
accepted to have associated impacts due to the accompanying dam wall. For hydropower to be
considered in a river, several aspects influence the viability of such a facility. These include
topography, in-stream flow, dam backwater (inundation) effects and the ownership of land (Van der
Merwe 2013). The Orange River is South Africa’s longest river and a significant source for a
substantial portion of the country’s water. A variety of uses centre around the river, including it
being a source of irrigation for agriculture, water for mining and industry, as well as providing
tourism businesses and the public with opportunities for recreational, sporting and adventure type
activities. Further to this, the landscape accounts for both terrestrial and aquatic habitat and
harbours heritage resources.
1.1. Background to the project
The proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site was conceived as a run of river (ROR) hydropower
generation system. It would be located on a portion of the Orange River, between Portion 3 of Farm
Eskdale No. 204 and Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237. Initially investigated in 2012, Sidala,
through the appointment of specialists, considered several possible site locations for the
development. An alternative site, located between the Remainder of Farm Hereford No. 202 and the
Remainder of Farm Slypsteen No. 42 was initially considered, however this site was found to be less
suitable, due to unfavourable geological condition as well as the proximity to another proposed
hydropower site downstream, and inundation of the site, which would reduce the energy
production at the site. Other alternatives are being considered and are discussed in this report.
1.2. Applicant
Sidala is the project applicant, whilst the proposed project is registered under the business name
Rooikat Hydropower (Pty) Ltd. Details for these parties are as follows:
Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd.
Rooikat Hydropower (Pty) Ltd.
PO Box 84486, Greenside, 2034
Basil Read Campus, 1 Romeo Street, Hughes
Extension,
Boksburg,
1459
11
1.3. Locality
The preferred Rooikat Hydropower Site will be situated on the Orange River at coordinates
29°27'3.58"S; 23°54'58.38"E between Portion 3 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert Registration RD)
and Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237 (Hopetown RD). The farms adjacent the Orange River on
which the proposed facility falls are privately owned, whilst the Department of Water Affairs are
custodians of the river with authority over water use and activities. Landowners of farms upstream
to be affected by inundation by the dam are being engaged with.
The site is situated approximately 26km North-east of Hopetown, and falls on the boundary of the
Thembelihle Local Municipality and Siyancuma Local Municipality, situated within the greater Pixley
ka Seme District Municipality. Accessibility to the site is obtained either by using the provincial R385
road to the East of the site or the gravel R387 road to the West. Both roads orientate from North to
South, thus linking Douglas with Hopetown. Figure 1 on the overleaf illustrates the locality of the
proposed facility in relation to access routes, adjacent farm portions and nearby towns.
1.4. Alternatives considered
Alternatives considered include three location alternatives, two design alternatives, two technology
alternatives and a no-go option.




Three location alternatives have been considered during the scoping process.
o Alternative 1 was first considered as a potential site location due to the narrow crosssectional area favourable for construction, however a geological fault that was identified
reduced the viability of this location.
o Alternative 2 was considered due to favourable topographical features and the
existence of a gravel access track to the site. Engagement with the landowner over likely
visual and noise impacts resulted into the site becoming less viable.
o Alternative 3, located approximately 1km upstream of alternative 2, was identified as a
feasible site by the geotechnical engineer and is currently the preferred location
alternative.
Two design alternatives have been considered during the scoping process.
o Alternative 1 entails the construction of a diversion weir, offtake, headrace conduit
(canal or tunnel), power house and tailrace. This is however not feasible due to the high
capital costs and head losses.
o Alternative 2, involves the construction of a weir used to create generation head in
combination with a powerhouse at the same location. This alternative is preferred over
Alternative 1 due to lower civil costs.
Two technology alternatives have been considered, namely a Vertical Kaplan Turbine and a Bulb
Turbine, however preference will only be given during the design phase.
A no-go option has been considered which would result in the affected area and associated
biophysical and social environment remaining as is. Positive impacts of the project would not be
realised.
Figure 1: Locality Map (An A3 legible version of this map is included in Appendix C)
1.5. Project Description
The construction of the Rooikat Hydropower project will involve the following related infrastructure,
which will be verified by the feasibility study:
1. Weir with a 30m height or less
2. Powerhouse inside the weir
3. Utility building
4. Dam gate crane shed
5. Back-up generator
6. Powerhouse inlet
7. Powerhouse outlet
8. Hydro mechanical turbine
9. Temporary coffer dams
10. Temporary diversion works
11. MV switch/transformer yard
12. Permanent access route (<8m width)
13. Temporary construction routes (<8m width)
14. Mining of Quarry
15. Quarry material in river bed for dam
16. Transmission (power) line <33kV
17. Point of Utility Connection (PUC) at
substation
18. Temporary construction camps
19. Fencing of hydropower site
20. Water extraction during construction
21. Storage of aggregate and waste soil
22. Boat launching dock
23. A prefabricated Truss Bridge (Bailie Bridge)
24. Fish Ladder
Due to the current status of design of the proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site, dimensions of the
proposed weir are not confirmed as yet. As such, the following dimensions represent maximum
values and should be considered comparable with final dimensions.




The length of the weir will not exceed 400m;
The Full Supply Level (FSL) of the dam will not exceed 1040MASL;
The maximum height of the structure including flood protection will not be more than 45m;
The width of the weir will not be more than 55m at the base, excluding the Apron.
1.6. Farms affected by the proposed development
The following list details all farms affected by the proposed location of the Rooikat Hydropower Site,
inundation of the dam, associated transmission line and access roads:
Hydropower Site
Portion 3, Farm Deelfontein No. 237 (Hopetown RD)
Portion 3, Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
Transmission Line
Portion 8, Farm Disselfontein No. 77 (Hopetown RD)
Access Routes
Portion 3, Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
Inundation Area
Rem, Portion 3, Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
Landowner
Dr. Waltie Vermeulen
Mr. Jannie Zwiegers
Landowner
Mr. Leon Ferreira
Landowner
Mr. Jannie Zwiegers
Landowner
Mr. Jannie Zwiegers
Mr. Leon Ferreira
Portion 5 and 7, Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
Rem, Farm Naauwtesfontein No. 78 (Hopetown RD)
DR. Gerrie Scholtz
Mr. Charles Mathewson
Mr. Reynders
Portion 1, Farm Stoffels Hoek No. 81(Herbert RD)
Rem, Farm Zuurgat No. 82 (Hopetown RD)
Mr. George Steytler
Mr. George Steytler
1.7. Need and Desirability
Several key factors can be cited as motivation for the need and desirability of a Hydroelectric Power
facility. These factors have been summarised below:
Alignment with National commitments to address Climate Change - Small Scale Run of River
Hydropower is a renewable energy technology which will displace fossil fuel derived energy and
reduce the country’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Alignment with National commitments to renewable energy generation -South Africa has made
commitments to the promotion of the generation of energy from renewable sources. One of the
programmes to promote renewable energy is the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers
Procurement Programme (REIPPPP). Small Scale Hydropower is one of the technologies listed in the
REIPPPP and is a strong motivation for the development of this project.
Ensuring reliable and locally-supplied energy – The Rooikat Hydro Power Site will mostly likely
improve the overall grid stability within the immediate Hopetown/ Douglas area. Currently there
exist no base load generation capacity in the area and the additional 20 MW will result in improved
grid stability and power supply to the electrical power users in the immediate vicinity. As the hydro
power station will generally generate power 24 hours a day, it will assist the local area with
providing power during peak hours as well as further improving the power availability in the area
and overall grid stability.
Attenuation of River Flow Rates – The current Vanderkloof hydroelectric power station upstream of
the proposed Rooikat site produces peaking power for Eskom. This results in the frequent release of
high flow water discharges into the river. The proposed project will provide an attenuation of these
flows and may reduce the impact of the Vanderkloof hydroelectric operations on the river flow and
water levels.
Reduced pumping costs - Existing agricultural activities will benefit from reduced pumping costs as
the raised water level reduces the pumping head. The results of this will reduce the energy
consumption of some of the major agricultural operations in the area, which will have a positive
effect on food security and energy supply.
Economic stimulus to the local economy, and subsequent social benefits to local communities - Job
creation, skills development and poverty alleviation are priority areas for the local community.
Statistics South Africa reports that the population unemployment rate is at 28.4% of which youth
accounts for 35.2%. 15.1% of adults of the age of 20 have had no schooling. The REIPPPP requires
the project to employ citizens from local communities and incentivises the project to maximise these
numbers.
15
A development like the proposed project has an approximate construction time line of 18 to 24
months and requires an estimated 500 to 900 construction related jobs for the duration of that
period, as well as approximately 10 permanent jobs for the ongoing maintenance of the facility.
These activities will also result in skills transfer to the local communities and stimulus to the local
economy. Furthermore, the REIPPPP requires a minimum level of community ownership and South
African products to be used in the project, which will add further socio-economic benefits to the
project.
In the Thembelihle Local Municipality’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for 2013/2014, according
to their social economic analysis, they highlight priority socio-economic development areas as: lack
of useful healthcare facilities; no recreational facilities for farm workers; poor educational facilities
(e.g. libraries, poor farm schools, no Adult Basic Education and Training, etc.) and an urgent need for
addressing prominent alcohol and drug abuse by youth, crime and the abuse of women, children and
the elderly which are daily occurrences.
As part of the REIPPPP process, a portion of the revenues from the proposed project will go towards
Corporate Social Investment programmes and will employ the expertise of an implementation
partner to specifically design community-based solutions over the project life-span. 20 years allows
enough time to develop programmes that have an impact on the future of an entire generation and
this relates to a significant positive impact.
In order to contribute towards realising these goals, Sidala proposes the construction of the Rooikat
Hydroelectric Power Site on the Orange River, between the Remainder of Farm Eskdale No. 204 and
Portion 1 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237, Thembelihle Local Municipality, Northern Cape.
The following question and answer section (Table 1) has been modelled around those required by
the DEA in terms of the EIA Guideline and Information Document Series’ Guideline on the Need and
Desirability, and discusses and explains the need and desirability in further detail. Note that
specialist studies to assess areas of environmental impact will examine some of these issues. As
such, these questions will be elaborated on in the draft EIR.
Table 2: Needs and Desirability Question and Answers
Needs (“timing”)
Question 1: Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the
timeframes intended by the existing approved spatial development framework (SDF) agreed to by
the relevant environmental authority? (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects
and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP).
No SDF exists for the Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality, within which the proposed development
falls. The Thembelihle Local Municipalities IDP (2013-2014) denotes strategic macro-level goals,
namely to:
-
Speed up growth and transformation of the economy to create decent work and
sustainable livelihoods;
Build cohesive, caring and sustainable communities.
16
Strategic goals of the IDP were aligned with the Medium Term Strategy Framework (MTSF, 20092014) of the National Government by addressing issues of poverty and unemployment, and
providing equitable distribution of benefits of economic growth.
Considering the above two goals, the generation of jobs for low-skilled and medium-skilled workers
over the construction period of the proposed development would attribute towards the
stimulation of local economic growth. The proposal hydropower site which would generate energy
at a constant, reliable rate (referred to as baseload power), is considered a sustainable, renewable
form of energy generation.
Furthermore, the establishment of a local community trust with ownership in the project will
ensure that project revenues accrue to the local community which will contribute to local
empowerment and poverty alleviation.
Question 2: Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms
of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occurs here as this point in time?
The proposed development would address strategic goals identified in the IDP for 2013-2014,
which are informed by national government priorities to address economic development by means
of employment opportunities to further alleviate poverty.
Question 3: Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is
it a societal priority)? This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a
national priority, but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate).
On consideration of section 2 (P.17) of the IDP, the activity is not one listed as a community and
stakeholder priority, however it would attribute towards the realisation of some of the issues,
namely:
Item 82. Poverty alleviation and job creation
The injection of income into the local economy may, however, be an enabler for the addressing of
issues held by the community and stakeholders.
Question 4: Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of
application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development?
The design of the proposed development would account for all associated services which would
need commissioning to enable the operation of the facility. The availability of existing electricity
infrastructure would be ensured through negotiations with Eskom. Access to the site through the
use of the R385 and R387 would be discussed with the Northern Cape Department of Roads and
Public Works. Services for the handling of general waste and sewerage would need to be procured
through the services of a contractor. Accommodation of general waste at municipal waste sites
would need to be addressed through engagement of the local municipality.
Question 5: Is the development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and
if not what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and
17
placement of services and opportunity costs)?
No, the activity does not form part of the infrastructure planning of the municipality, however,
infrastructure and services would be calculated in the design of the proposed development of the
project. If there are other required services, this will be communicated with municipality and
building permission will need to be obtained from the relevant authority.
Question 6: Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or
importance?
Yes, the proposed development would contribute towards achieving a national target made by the
DoE, for a 30% share of all new power generation to be derived from IPPs. It would further
strengthen reliability of the existing electricity grid in the area through the feed-in of baseload
power.
Desirability (“placing”)
Question 1: Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site?
This shall be assessed during the EIA process through the assessment of impacts which will assess
impacts, and through cumulative impact assessment, weigh up these impacts with other possible
options for the site.
Question 2: Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing
approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF as agreed to be the relevant authorities?
No, the activity would address issues of job creation by providing employment opportunities for
low-skilled and medium-skilled people.
Question 3: Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing
environmental management priorities of the area (e.g. as defined in EMFs), and if so, can’t it be
justified in terms of sustainability considerations?
This is not anticipated at this stage, as the development would not compromise water use activity
in the area. However, through public participation, the further engagement of authorities and
stakeholders will provide ‘new information’ pertaining to environmental management priorities in
the area.
Question 4: Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this
place? (this relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this this site within its
broader context)
Yes, the placement of the proposed development within the watercourse of the Orange River,
would provide a beneficial source of potential energy through in-stream flow to power the
proposed hydroelectric power site. Conflict with some existing land uses such as recreational
activities (e.g. canoeing and fly-fishing) as well as (including, but not limited to) irrigation
infrastructure, agricultural and built infrastructure and structures may arises. However benefits as
described above would be the attenuation of river flow rates, reduced pumping costs for
18
agricultural activities and possible positive impacts to tourism and the local economy as a result of
the creation of a dam upstream of the weir. Furthermore, these sites were selected after a long site
investigation process along the entire length of the Orange River. The minimal impacts on existing
land use and the environment were amongst the main reasons for the site selection. This section of
the river, because of its topography, means that there are very few existing activities that will be
affected.
Question 5: How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity for, impact on
sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural environment)?
The construction of a weir at the proposed location would inundate Upper Gariep Alluvial
Vegetation which is listed as a Vulnerable vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford 2006), which
occurs on the banks of the watercourse. Furthermore, heritage resources of varying levels of
significance may be inundated. Both aspects will be assessed by specialists and addressed in the
draft EIR.
Question 6: How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. in terms of
noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc?
The construction of weir and associated inundation of the upstream area would likely result in a
visual impact which could pose an impact of the landscape character and sense of place. This
aspect will be discussed and assessed during the EIA phase. These items are addressed in the
PoSEIA in Chapter 6.
Question 7: Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result
in unacceptable opportunity costs?
A Socio-economic Impact Assessment is to be conducted which will be discussed and assessed
during the EIA phase. These items are addressed in the PoSEIA in Chapter 6.
Question 8: Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts?
A Cumulative Impact Assessment is to be conducted as part of the EIA, which will form part of the
assessment process during the EIA phase. This item is addressed in the PoSEIA in Chapter 6.
1.8. NEMA EIA Regulations
The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA) is the principle
legislation governing Environmental Impact Assessment, under the authority of the National
Department of Environmental Affairs.
NEMA makes provisions for co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for
decision-making on matters affecting the environment, institutions that will promote co-operative
governance and procedures for co-ordinating environmental functions exercised by Organs of the
State and to provide for matters connected therewith. Section 2 of the Act establishes a set of
principles, which apply to the activities of all Organs of State that may significantly affect the
environment. These include the following:
19





Development must be sustainable;
Pollution must be avoided or minimised and remedied;
Waste must be avoided or minimised, reused or recycled;
Negative impacts must be minimised and positive impacts enhanced; and
Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of a policy, project,
product or service exists throughout its entire life cycle.
These principles are taken into consideration when a Government department exercises its powers,
for example, during the granting of permits and the enforcement of existing legislation or conditions
of approval.
Furthermore, Section 23 of the NEMA provide for general objectives of Integrated Environmental
Management. In alignment with these objectives, the potential impacts on the biophysical and
socio-economic environments have been identified and discussed. During the EIA process, these
shall be assessed and evaluated, and mitigation measures provided for where appropriate. These
mitigation measures will be included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) for the
project.
In terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2010 (Government Notices R544,
R545 and R546 in Government Gazette No. 33306 of 18 June 2010), also referred to as Listing
Notices 1, 2 and 3, respectively, several activities were identified to be triggered by the proposed
development. Considering the nature and scale of these activities, it was identified that a full
Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process was necessary to be undertaken.
The concluding aspect of this EIA process would be the issuing of an Environmental Decision
(positive or negative) by the competent authority, the National Department of Environmental Affairs
(DEA). Only with this positive authorisation and supporting permits may the applicant lawfully
commence with the intended activity, thus rendering this process critical in the feasibility and
planning stage of the development.
The following listed activities are triggered by the proposed development:
20
Table 3: Listed activities triggered by the proposed development
Regulation
Activity
Description of Triggers
GN. R. 544, 18 June 2010
Activity 11: The construction of:
(i) canals;
(iii) bridges;
(iv) dams;
(v) weirs;
(viii) jetties exceeding 50 square
metres in size;
GN. R. 544, 18
June 2010.
(x) buildings exceeding 50 square
metres in size; or
(xi) infrastructure or structures
covering 50 square metres or more
where such construction occurs within
a watercourse or within 32 metres of
a watercourse, measured from the
edge of a watercourse, excluding
where such construction will occur
behind the development setback line.
Activity 18: The infilling or depositing
of any material of more than 5 cubic
metres into, or the dredging,
GN. R. 544, 18 excavation, removal or moving of soil,
June 2010.
sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock
of more than 5 m³ from:
(i) a watercourse;
(i) Construction of a temporary diversion
canal for water to bypass the construction
of a weir;
(iii) Construction of a bailie bridge over the
river;
(iv) Construction of temporary coffer dams
for temporary river diversion;
(v) Construction of a weir with a maximum
height of 30m;
(viii) Construction of a boat dock in the
close vicinity of the dam wall
(x) Construction of a utility building, dam
gate crane shed, transform yard,
(xi) Construction of a generator; installation
of a hydro mechanical turbine with
generator;
construction
of
MV
switch/transformer yard; construction off a
permanent access route; construction of a
distribution line; construction of PUC at
substation; construction of fencing.
(i) Construction and establishment of a
hydropower facility on the banks of the
Orange River. More than 5m3 of material
will be excavated for the diversion channel
and construction of the weir. Material shall
be excavated from an existing quarry to
supply aggregate for the road.
GN. R. 545, 18 June 2010
Activity 1: The construction of
facilities or infrastructure for the
generation of electricity where the
GN. R. 545, electricity output is 20 megawatts or
18 June 2010. more.
21
Construction of a weir with an electricity
output of approximately 22MW. Given the
dimensions of the weir, having a height of
up to 30m, a width of up to 55m at the base
and length of up to 400m, in combination
with the available flow in the river, the
facility would be able to produce capacity
of approximately 22MW.
Activity 15: Physical alteration of
undeveloped, vacant or derelict land
GN. R. 545, for residential, retail, commercial,
18 June 2010. recreational, industrial or institutional
use where the total area to be
transformed is 20 hectares or more;
Transformation (Inundation) of 5.5 km²
(550 hectares), which shall flood
terrestrial areas adjacent to the
watercourse.
1.9. Other Legislation, Policy, Plans and Guidelines
Aside from the NEMA, several other key legislation, policy, plans and guidelines will be triggered,
whilst others shall provide strategic goals and priorities for different resources and sectors. These
are stratified into levels of National, Provincial and Local jurisdiction.
1.9.1. National level
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996) in Section 24, states that
everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to
have the environment protected, for benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable
legislation and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote
conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while
prompting justifiable economic and social development. These principles should therefore be
integrated into the project wherein such rights may be affected.
National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998)
The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) aims to ensure sustainable use of water through
the protection of the quality of water resources for the benefit of all water users. Its principal focus
is the equitable allocation and use of the scarce and disproportionately distributed water resources
of South Africa. The Department of Water Affairs overseas implementation hereof and is the
responsible authority for the issuing of permits for water use.
Section 21 of this Act defines types of water use, of which the following types are triggered by this
proposed development during the construction and operational period of the activity:




(c) Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;
(d) Engaging in a stream flow reduction activity;
(e) Engaging in a controlled activity identified in Section 37(1)(c) a power generation
activity which alters the flow regime of a water resource; and
(i) Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a water course.
In light of the triggering of these water uses, Enviroworks is actively engaging the Department of
Water Affairs to ensure that a decision can be reached regarding such proposed activities on the
Orange River. A Water Use Licence Application (WULA) process is being implemented to address
triggers of the National Water Act.
22
Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002)
The MPRDA aims to govern acquisition, use and disposal or mineral rights by delegating the state
with power and control over mineral and petroleum resources of South Africa. The Department of
Mineral Resources are the custodians of the MPRDA and maintain an information database of all
registered mining activities within the borders of South Africa.
Enviroworks has conducted Access to Information with the Department of Mineral Resources to
determine what mineral rights are assigned to affected properties and the extent of such operations.
Landowners have also been engaged with to obtain further detail on such related activities.
National Heritage Resource Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999)
To assess the archaeological and paleontological sensitivity of the proposed development, specialist
surveys are being conducted, in line with requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999
(Act No. 25 of 1999) (NHRA). This is triggered by the site being greater than 0.5 hectares in extent.
In terms of the NHRA, the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) has a mandate to
enforce the conditions of the NHRA, and hence oversees the management of heritage resources
together with provincial heritage agencies.
Several sub-sections of Section 38 of the NHRA are triggered by the proposed activity. In addition,
the region in which the proposed development falls, maintains a rich cultural landscape with
multiple heritage landmarks and designated protected sites throughout. As a result, heritage
specialist investigation is being undertaken to assess the implications of such a development on any
such resources.
White Paper on Renewable Energy Policy in South Africa (2003)
The white paper is responsible for promoting and implementing renewable energy in South Africa. It
sets a framework and vision for government’s intent to meet renewable energy, policy principles,
strategic goals and objectives. With a wealth of renewable resources, largely solar and wind, South
Africa intends to promote the agenda of this policy. Critical outputs include meeting economic,
technical and other developmental constraints, as well as fighting the effects of climate change
through renewable energy activities.
In addition, through the support of renewable energy generation as supported in this policy, South
Africa will make progress towards meeting their set target of 10 000 GWh of renewable energy
contribution to final energy consumption by 2013 through biomass, wind, solar and small-scale
hydro forms. Through this target, roughly 4% of the national energy demand shall be met (DME
2003).
Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, 2010-2013
In accordance with the Energy Act of 2008, the Minister of Energy must develop and publish an
integrated resource plan. To meet this requirement, the Department of Energy (DoE) and National
Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) assembled the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for the
period 2010 to 2030. The critical objective hereof is to develop a sustainable electricity investment
strategy for generation capacity and transmission infrastructure. Amongst other goals, the IRP is
23
intended to improve the long term reliability of electricity supply by keeping pace with economic
growth and development, as well as determining South Africa’s capacity investment needs.
Objectives of the IRP include the evaluating of security of supply, and determining the least cost
supply option and provide information on the opportunities for new investment. The plans
outcomes found that South Africa will still be dependent on coal-fired options over the next 20 years
and the construction of additional base load plants will be required from 2010. Committed
generation is planned for 9.6 GW of nuclear, 6.3 GW of coal, 17.8 GW of renewable (including 8.4
GW solar) and 8.9 of other generation sources.
Electricity Regulation Act 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006)
NERSA, under the mandate of the National Energy Regulator Act of 2004 (No. 40 of 2004) and
subordinate legislation, such as the Electricity Regulation Act (No. 4 of 2006), has the authority to
determine prices at and condition under which electricity may be supplied by licence to Independent
Power Producers (IPPs). Presently, NERSA is undertaking requests for qualification and proposals for
new generation capacity under the IPP procurement program, as well as updating and expanding the
process in awarding electricity generation licences.
National Development Plan - 2030
The executive summary of the National Development Plan (NDP) initiates with the following
paragraph, “The National Development Plan aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by
2030. South Africa can realise these goals by drawing on the energies of its people, growing an
inclusive economy, building capabilities, enhancing the capacity of the state, and promoting
leadership and partnerships throughout society.”
One of the enabling milestones of the NDP, 2013 is to:

Produce sufficient energy to support industry at competitive prices, ensuring access for poor
households, while reducing carbon emissions per unit of power by about one-third.
The proposed hydropower facilities will make a positive contribution towards this milestone.
National Infrastructure Plan, 2012
In terms of the National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), the proposed hydropower facility would
contribute to Strategic Integrated Projects (SIP) 8: Green energy in support of the South African
economy: Support sustainable green energy initiatives on a national scale through a diverse range of
clean energy options as envisaged in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010).
1.9.2. Provincial Level
Northern Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework
The Northern Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (NCPSDF) was formulated in 2011 to
meet the requirements of the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of
1998) and the Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000). Prepared in accordance with a
bioregional planning approach adapted to suit the site-specific requirements of the Northern Cape,
the NCPSDF recognises that no region or area should be planned and managed as an ‘island’ in
24
isolation from its surroundings. Together, unit areas form part of the broader environment and the
mutual relationships and linkages between adjacent units must be understood and applied.
The framework aims to act as a policy and strategy providing direction and guidance for:
-
future land use,
spatial context for provincial sectoral strategies,
promoting a developmental state,
alignment of environmental management priorities, and
mobilising the overarching objective of the Northern Cape Provincial Growth and
Development Strategy (PGDS) to build prosperous, sustainable and growing provincial
economy to eradicate poverty and improves social development.
A focus for achieving sustainable development as discussed in the framework, requires four areas of
capital, being environmental, human, infrastructure and monetary. The plan further stresses the
need for integrative participation, positive interventions and innovative finance.
With relevance to the SDF, the proposed development aligns with the goals for intelligent land use,
development of local government infrastructure and implementation of environmental
management policy and planning processes to ensure sound development is achieved.
Northern Cape Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (NCPGDS)
The Northern Cape Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (NCPGDS) (2004 – 2014) highlights
the most significant growth and development challenge as the reduction of poverty, and that only
through long-term sustainable economic growth and development shall this be achieved. Important
areas where growth can be achieved include agriculture and agro-processing, transport and tourism.
In support of such growth areas the creation of opportunities for life-long learning, improvement of
labour force skills to enhance productivity and expanding access to education and knowledge shall
lead to the further realisation of such growth.
The inclusion of macro-level objectives shall mobilize these primary growth areas. Such objectives
include the developing of human and social capital, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
governance and associated institutions and enhancing infrastructure for economic growth and
development. The North site would contribute towards meeting this strategic objective.
1.9.3. District and Local Level
Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality Integrated Development Plan from 2011-2016
The Pixley ka Seme District Municipality presides over eight constituent local municipalities. The
Municipality envisions that the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) will enable the council to work
with citizens, groups and communities of the region to identify sustainable ways of meeting their
social, economic and material needs, as well as to improve the quality of their lives.
The document identifies the development priorities for the district over a five year period, with a
mandate to promote a developmental municipality and promote sustainable development in the
25
region through effective and efficient service delivery. This with the aim to improve the health and
living conditions of the poor, generate local economic development and job creation.
Thembelihle Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2013-2014
The Thembelihle Local Municipality IDP recognizes and describes means to address services delivery
and ancillary service needs for the municipality. One of these strategic objectives is to stimulate local
economic growth through job creation. Although the proposed development activity does not
feature as a potential solution to this point, it would generate the need for employment during the
construction period, therefore contributing towards this goal (Thembelihle Local Municipality
Integrated Development Plan 2013-2014). A further objective in terms of the Electrical master plan is
to improve management and development of electricity. This proposed development by providing
locally produced electricity could benefit this aim by ensuring a reliable supply to the Eskom grid.
Thembelihle Local Municipality Local Economic Development Strategy 2012
The Local Economic Development Strategy (2013: 1) defines LED as an approach to sustainable
economic development that encourages residents of local communities to work together to
stimulate local economic activity that will result in, inter alia, an improvement in the quality of life
for all in the local community. This plan is focused around, amongst others, sustainable
development, employment creation for local communities and fast growing local economy.
The vision of the document is to deliver sustainable development, economic growth and
development, local employment creation and a high quality of life for all, diversified local economy
and education and skills development. This proposed development can be considered to address
four of these five provisions. The document aligns in many respects with components of the
Integrated Development Plan.
1.10. Environmental Assessment Practitioner
Enviroworks was appointed by Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd. as the independent Environmental
Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to conduct a Scoping and Full EIA process for the proposed project.
Enviroworks, a Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprise (SMME) company was established in
November 2002. Although the formal establishment of this company took place then, it is backed by
35 years of collective professional service and experience in the environmental field. The
qualifications and expertise of our professional team forms the backbone of the company’s
continued success.
The vision of Enviroworks is to provide excellent, cutting edge Environmental Management Solutions
and Services, underpinned by a team of professional consultants together with our associated
network of specialist partners and project managers. Through an integration of skills and expertise, it
is believed that Enviroworks will deliver exceptional, competitive services for task execution and to
meet deliverables.
Enviroworks through our years of experience and industry presence, assures the seamless execution
and roll out of tasks to achieve projected results on time. The company continuously engages
existing and emerging legislation, guidelines and practices, to ensure the execution of qualitative
26
and appropriate studies. Our past experience on renewable energy projects further benefits our
understanding of technology-related processes and the impacts thereof.
The project EAP is Mark Day, Senior Environmental Consultant at Enviroworks.
Mark Day has been employed as an environmental consultant at Enviroworks since March 2010.
With expertise in environmental management and associated legal processes, Mark has rapidly
gained insight in to the field through the engagement and conducting of numerous projects across
South Africa. His principal knowledge relates to environmental impact assessments, public
participation, compliance monitoring and research-related discourses. A strong background in
community engagement and facilitation together with excellent project management skills, ensures
that Mark delivers streamlined and integrated deliverables to his clients. Strong report writing and
investigative skills enables Mark to contribute significantly towards ensuring an integrated
assessment process. A copy of the Curriculum Vitae of this consultant can be viewed in Appendix A.
The internal reviewer is Pieter de Villiers, General Manager and Senior Environmental Consultant
at Enviroworks
Pieter de Villiers maintains nearly 8 years of experience in the environmental management arena.
The skills gained during this time provide him with the ability to coordinate projects and manage
teams effectively. Pieter serves as general manager providing leadership to staff and overseeing all
company projects and services areas. He also functions as a Senior Environmental Consultant and
maintains projects of his own.
27
2. SCOPING PROCEDURE
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2002) (now called the DEA) describes
scoping as an important tool for involving the public in the environmental assessment process, and
for structuring assessment studies. It is through scoping, that priorities of the environmental
assessment are set. The conditions and terms of reference for the subsequent Environmental Impact
Assessment phase is based on issues and concerns that are raised during scoping.
The DEA further encourages the contribution of all stakeholders and I&APs parties to take part in
scoping activities so as to ensure optimal and rigorous investigation preceding the EIA phase.
2.1. Purpose of the Scoping Phase
The main purpose of the scoping process is to identify issues surrounding the proposed project.
Furthermore, it is by this process that issues of I&APs are documented and commented on, issues
which are important for decision-making are prioritized, early engagement of stakeholders and
I&APs, feasible alternatives are identified; and legal, policy and planning measures pertinent to the
project are identified.
In respect to the proposed development, measures enabling the scoping process include:








Site investigations,
Professional judgement,
Review of available literature,
Consider the need and desirability,
A comprehensive public participation process,
Consideration of reasonable and feasible alternatives,
Identify and describe potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, and
Prepare a Plan of Study for the EIA phase.
2.2. Steps of the Scoping Phase
DEAT (2002) identifies three primary procedural steps which are followed when scoping:



Planning the scoping procedure;
Stakeholder engagement to identify key issues; and
Reporting on terms of reference for the next phase of the assessment.
Each step can be described as follows:
2.2.1. Planning the scoping procedure
The objectives of such a step are to identify authorities and I&APs to be involved; define the roles
and responsibilities of authorities and I&APs; find agreement on the process to be followed;
generate background information to spur on the involvement of authorities and I&APs; and identify
the most suitable strategies for communicating with I&APs.
Such planning for this process was achieved through the generation of a preliminary list of
stakeholders and I&APs that would need to be made aware of such a proposed development. The
provision of a Background Information Document was made, providing preliminary details on the
nature of the project, location, steps to the assessment process, how I&APs can participate and
contact information of the EAP.
2.2.2. Stakeholder engagement to identify the key issues
The objectives of engaging stakeholders include ensuring agreement on the scoping process to
ensue; providing access to project information; guaranteeing that I&APs understand what is being
proposed and why; determining principal issues for consideration in the assessment; scheduling
issues by level of importance; and developing a strategy for resolving key issues.
These objectives were mobilised through active engagement of authorities and stakeholders
identified as key national, regional and local role-players and documentation of issues in a comment
and response table.
2.2.3. Reporting on the terms of reference for the next phase of the assessment
The objectives of this final stage are to provide closure on all issues to be investigated in the
environmental impact reporting phase and by specialist studies to be undertaken; as well as
provision of responses as to how concerns and issues raised by I&APs have been integrated into the
EIA process.
Such objectives are met through this report, which shall provide baseline information on all spheres
of the development, details on issues which have materialised and draft terms of reference for
specialist studies.
2.3. Public Participation
A comprehensive public participation process has been conducted and remains ongoing to ensure
that I&APs remain informed of the proposed development and to ensure that I&APs and
stakeholders have the opportunity to raise their concerns and/or comments. Proof of consultation of
all parties to date can be found in Appendix C: Public Participation Document.
2.3.1. Notification and Registration Process
The following measures were implemented to date:
 Placement of an advertisement in Die Noordkaap Newspaper on the 26th June 2013;
 Placement of A2 size Site Notices on the 23rd July 2013 on surrounding farms, as well as two
notices in Douglas and Hopetown each;
 Engagement of affected landowners via telephone and email notification on the
23rd July 2013;
 The following surrounding landowners were informed of the project by means of a
Background Information Document via email notification, and afforded the opportunity to
comment on the project by means of an Interested and Affected Parties Comment Form:
29
Farm/s
Lot 271, Remainder Kameeldrift 285, Portion 8 Disselfontein 77
Portion 3, Farm Eskdale 204
Portion 5 & 7, Farm Eskdale 204
Portion 3, Farm Deelfontein 237
Remainder, Farm Eskdale 204
Remainder, Farm Naauwtesfontein 78
Portion 9, Farm Disselfontein 77
Contact Person
Mr Leon Ferreira
Mr Jas Zwiegers
Mr Charles Mathewson
Dr Waltie Vermeulen
Mr Jas Zwiegers
Mr Albert Reynders
Dr Gerrie Scholtz
In addition to the above given landowners, new landowners became affected once inundation
contours were obtained. These landowners are being communicated with and have been registered
as I&APs. These landowners are as follows:
Farm/s
Remainder, Farm Wicklow 218
Remainder, Farm Zuurgat 82
Remainder, Farm Stoffelshoek 81
Contact Person
Mr. George Steytler
Mr. George Steytler
Figure 2: Map depicting farms and associated landowners affected by the weir and inundation

Authorities and stakeholders were informed via telephone and written notification on
commencement of initial public participation, as well as on circulation of the DSR and FSR.
These were:
30
o
o
o
o
o
o
Siyancuma Local Municipality
Ward Councillor
Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality
Department of Environment & Nature Conservation
Department of Water Affairs
Eskom
o National Energy Regulator of South Africa
o South African Heritage Resources Agency
Mr. W Stadhouer
Mr. Johannes Mosetle
Mrs. Viv Jones
Mr. T Mthombeni
Ms. R Nobela
Mr. B Williams
Mr. G van Schalkwyk
Mr. Martin Untiedt
Ms. Kathryn Smuts
The following persons and organizations responded to notification and registered on the project:
 Surrounding landowners


o Rem, Portion 3, Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
o Portion 8 of Farm Disselfontein No. 77 (Hopetown RD)
o Portion 9 of Farm Disselfontein No. 77 (Hopetown RD)
o Rem, Portion 3 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
o Portion 5 and 7 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 (Herbert RD)
o Rem of Farm Naauwesfontein No. 78 (Hopetown RD)
Stakeholders
o Department of Water Affairs
o South African Heritage Resources Agency
o Vanderkloof Water Use Association
Interested and Affected Parties
o The Fly Guides
o Aurecon (Pty) Ltd
o Kayak Tours
o Earth Adventures
o Ingwenya Tours
o Afri-q
Mr. Jannie Zwiegers
Mr. Leon Ferreira
Dr. Gerrie Scholtz
Mr. Jannie Zwiegers
Mr. Charles Mathewson
Mr. Albert Reynders
Mr. Dries Visser
Mr. Vernon Blair
Ms. Jackie van Bosch
Ms. Thembe Olebogang
Mr. Carlo Schrader
Ms. Kathryn Smuts
Mr. Johan van Graan
Mr. Chris Van Der Post
Ms. Louis Corbett
Mr. Robbie Herreveld
Mr. Jaco Botha
Mr. Dolf Jordaan
Mr. Hein Fourie
Registered I&APs will be communicated with throughout the reporting process, whilst unresponsive
stakeholders and I&APs shall be engaged for comment during the upcoming Environmental Impact
Reporting phase.
31
2.3.2. Comments and Responses
The following table provides a summary of key issues/comments from I&APs and responses by the
EAP and project team, given to date:
Table 4: Comments and Responses Table
Comment
Response
Party: Mr. Leon Ferreira (28 July 2013)
Enviroworks: Mr. Mark Day (5 Aug 2013)
Mr. Ferreira requested the height to which the The water level shall rise to between between
1030m – 1035m (Note it has since changed to
water level shall rise to.
1040masl as reflected in this report)
He commented on the presence of river pumps, The party was requested to provide a list of
rafting camp, hunting camp, diamond gravels assets and locations thereof to capture sites,
which may be impacted on. Impacts on all land
and archaeological sites.
use will be addressed during the EIA phase, once
the information requested has been obtained.
Mr. Ferreira commented on the negative impact The landowner is being negotiated with by the
to tourism potential to affected properties and developer regarding impacts to his property.
Impacts on tourism with be assessment by the
market value.
Socio-economic Impact Assessment and will be
addressed in the draft EIR.
Party: Mr. Leon Ferreira (4 Sept 2013)
Enviroworks: Mr. Mark Day (4 Sept 2013)
Mr. Ferreira identified two properties under his
ownership, which would be affected, namely
Farm Kameelsdrift 285 and Farm Disselfontein
77.
For all described land uses and features,
Enviroworks requested that the party provide
The farm contains a rafting camp with bushman GPS coordinates for further investigation. This
paintings, both which will be inundated. has not yet been provided for as yet.
Furthermore the Hells Gate and Hubly Bubbly
The impacts of inundation of tourism and
rapids will disappear.
heritage resources are being investigated by
Water pumps and associated pipeline to transfer specialists and will be addressed in the draft EIR.
between 3.2 and 3.6 million litres/hour for
irrigation, will be flooded. This may result in Negotiations with the landowner by the
developer are currently underway and measures
immense losses to agricultural activities.
to address possible impacts are being discussed.
Comments pertaining to Farm Disselfontein 77:
Party: SAHRA (20 Aug 2013)
SAHRA provided interim response to the Enviroworks acknowledged the comment and
32
information uploaded to the SAHRIS online indicated that such studies shall be conducted.
portal. The detailed that an archaeological Phase
1 Assessment and Paleontological investigation
be conducted.
Party: Ms. Louise Corbett (27 Aug 2013)
Ms. Corbett requested to be registered as an Enviroworks acknowledged registration and
I&AP to the project and requested the Megawatt indicated that the the proposed South (Rooikat)
Hydropower site would have a Megawatt
size for each facility and flow volume.
capacity of 18MW and a 150 m³/s flow rate.
Ms. Corbett emailed (09 Oct 2013) to confirm
registration on the project, as well as suggesting
the contacting of Ms. Jacoline Mans
(Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries) and Ms. Natalie Uys Department of
Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation
(DENC.
Enviroworks confirmed registration of the party
(09 Oct 2013) and provided a download link for
the DSR and FSR. Officials from DAFF and DENC
were contacted by Enviroworks, as indicated by
Ms. Corbett.
Party: The Fly Guides – Mr. Chris Van Der Post Enviroworks: Mr. Mark Day (1 Sept 2013)
(1 Sept 2013)
Fly-fishing business operations for Smallmouth
Yellowfish shall cease due to the flooding of
Enviroworks acknowledged registration and
rapids;
requested GPS coordinates for the sections of
The section of the Orange River between the river where operations are conducted. This
Douglas and Hopetown remains un-sploit;
has not been provided for as yet.
Agreements for use with Farm Disselfontein 77 Impacts on fish migration will be assessed in the
Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Survey and
and Kameelsdrift 285 shall be affected;
addressed in the draft EIR.
Concerns over fish migration paths for
Smallmouth and Largemouth Yellowfish and the Economic impacts on the Fly Fishing Guides will
be assessed in the Socio-economic Impact
‘blockages’ thereto;
Assessment and addressed in the draft EIR.
Navigation of the river will be seriously impacted
on, whilst cataraft structures which rely on fast- The I&AP was notified on the availability of the
flowing water shall become un-useable as a draft and final Scoping Reports and will be
engaged
with
through
further
public
result of slowed in-stream water movement.
participation.
Financial investments due to marketing
conducted to date shall be lost.
Party: Department of Water Affairs – Numerous Enviroworks: Mark Day (5 Sept 2013)
(Sept 2013)
On the 15th May 2013, Sidala Energy Solutions The Pre-Feasibility study made use of the latest
33
and Aecom conducted an initial meeting with hydrology computer model, as used by DWA.
the Department of Water Affairs to introduce
Furthermore, the incremental increase of
the project and obtain initial concerns.
evaporation loss was investigated and reported
in the Pre-Feasibility study.
The following inclusions to the pre-feasibility/ The downstream impact of the dam would be
hydrological study were requested by DWA:
clarified once the detailed design was underway.
-
-
-
The hydrology computer model to be
implemented in the undertaking of the
hydrological study must be the latest
version used by DWA;
The incremental increase of evaporation
loss by the schemes should be
investigated;
The downstream impact of the projects
and especially the filling of the dams will
be clarified.
The meeting attendees confirmed that these
points would be addressed as part of this study
and as such no further response was expected.
Enviroworks is engaging on an ongoing basis
with the DWA to ensure that Water Use is
adequately addressed through a Water Use
Licence Application process.
These factors will be investigated in the prefeasibility study.
Since the inception of public participation in July
2013, various officials from the Department of
Water Affairs have registered as stakeholders on
the project. These are Mr. Dries Visser, Mr.
Vernon Blair, Ms. Jackie van Bosch and Ms.
Thembe Olebogeng. These officials represent
directorates of both the Northern Cape and Free
State regional offices of the DWA.
DWA requested hard copies of the DSR to be
provided to their office. This was submitted to
the DWA on the 20th Sept 2013 (Draft Scoping
Report) and the 24th October 2013 (Final Scoping
Report).
Enviroworks acknowledged registration with all
parties. Mr. Dries Visser and Mr. Vernon Blair
requested that Water Use Licence Applications
(WULA) are to be submitted to the DWA.
Enviroworks requested that a pre-consultation
meeting be scheduled.
A pre-consultation meeting was held with DWA
at the Bloemfontein Office with Mr. Pius
Lerotholi on the 17th September 2013.
It was confirmed that the Water User
Associations (WUA) must be informed of the
proposed development; that a Hydrological
Study would need to be conducted; and that the
EIA would constitute supporting documents on
submission of the Water Use Licence Application
forms.
Party: Vanderkloof Water User Association – Enviroworks: Mark Day (9 Sept 2013)
Mr. Johan van Graan (9 Sept 2013)
34
Mr. Van Graan requested to be registered.
Enviroworks
acknowledged
registered the Vanderkloof
Association
receipt
Water
and
User
Mr. Van Graan was further corresponded with
via telephone and email, at which time the
contact details of all water users registered with
the WUA be provided, to enable Enviroworks to
inform these individuals/organisations.
This was not provided to Enviroworks to date.
Party: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Enviroworks: Mark Day (10 Oct 2013)
Forestries: Directorate: Forestry Management –
Ms. Jacoline Mans (10 Oct 2013)
Ms. Mans provided registration details and Enviroworks acknowledged correspondence and
indicated that impacts on riparian vegetation confirmed that engagement on relevant issues
may trigger interest from her unit, as well as would be made with the party.
impact on any protected trees. The party shall be
provided with a CD copy of all further reports for
comment. In addition, she provided the details
of Ms. Anneliza Collett, a representative for the
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries: Directorate: Land Use and Soil
Management.
Party: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Enviroworks: Mark Day (10 Oct 2013)
Fisheries: Directorate: Land Use and Soil
Management – Ms. Anneliza Collett (10 Oct
2013)
The correspondent indicated that Khuthala
Dlamini would be the relevant official for the
Northern Cape province, but that all
correspondence can be directed through Ms.
Thoko Buthelezi (liaison official at DAFF).
Enviroworks acknowledged correspondence and
indicated that all correspondence to DAFF (with
the exception to Ms. Mans), shall be sent to Ms.
Thoko Buthelezi for internal routing.
Party: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Enviroworks: Mark Day (10 Oct 2013)
Fisheries: Help Desk & Administrative Office –
Ms. Francina (Surname not given) (10 Oct 2013)
Ms. Francina indicated that the application and Following receipt of a case number for the South
request were sent to the liaison office for Hydropower Site, Enviroworks requested from
the official that the case details for the North
registration.
Hydropower Site be provided as well.
35
Party: Department of Environmental Affairs and Enviroworks: Mark Day (10 Oct 2013)
Nature Conservation (DENC): Ms. Natalie Uys
(09 Oct 2013)
Ms. Uys requested to be registered as a Enviroworks
acknowledged
receipt
and
stakeholder on the proposed projects.
confirmed registration to the project database.
Party: Kakamas Hydro: Ms. Mercia Grimbeek Enviroworks: Mark Day (14 Oct 2013)
(14 Oct 2013)
Ms. Grimbeek requested to be registered as a Enviroworks
acknowledged
receipt
and
stakeholder on the proposed projects.
confirmed registration to the project database.
On the 22nd October 2013, Ms. Grimbeek Enviroworks response to these questions is as
provided the following questions:
follows:
For the South (Rooikat) Project
For the South (Rooikat) Project
1. What is the expected energy yield from the 1. 80 – 100 GWh/annum
project?
2. How will the flow regime (i.e the variation of 2. These projects will not abstract any water.
flow) downstream of the project change due
Releases associated with the normal flow
to construction of the dam and operation of
will be discharged during river diversion and
during impoundment. Larger discharges
the power station?
during generation of hydropower at
Vanderkloof will be used for raising the
water levels of the new dams. There will
therefore be minimal change of flow regime
during filling of dams, and no change of flow
regime during operation.
Furthermore, could you please advise of the
No public meeting has been planned for to date.
dates for either a public participation or focus
If the need or interest presents itself, this shall
group meeting as I would be keen to attend.
be arranged for.
Party: Oranje Vaal Water User Association: Ms. Enviroworks: Mark Day (21 Oct 2013)
Lizelle Beukes (21 Oct 2013)
Ms. Beukes was provided with project Enviroworks requested for the party to register
information and invited to register as an to the project database.
interested and affected party on the project.
Party: Douglas Agricultural Association: Ms. J. Enviroworks: Mark Day (09/21 Oct 2013)
Van Staden (09 Oct 2013)
36
No comments have been received up to date.
Enviroworks contacted the party with an
invitation to register as an interested and
affected party.
Comments and Response received on the Final Scoping Report
Party: South African Heritage Resources Enviroworks: Mark Day
Agency: Jenna Lavin (29 October 2013)
The authority provided a second interim No response was given. This shall be undertaken
comment requesting that further studies during the impact assessment phase.
including assessment of powerline route, access
road, inundation area and rock art survey be
conducted.
Party: Wildlife Association of South Africa: Enviroworks: Mark Day (24 October 2013)
Suzanne Erasmus (24 October 2013)
The party registered as an interested party on The comment was acknowledged.
the project, indicated an incapacity to comment
on development proposals at this stage and
requested further correspondence be made via
email.
Party: Yellowfish Working Group: Peter Arderne Enviroworks: Mark Day (06 November 2013)
(06 November 2013)
The party requested to be registered as an The comment was acknowledged.
interested party.
Party: Ecological Management Services: Mike Enviroworks: Mark Day (01 November 2013)
Birch (01 November 2013)
The party requested to be registered as an The comment was acknowledged.
interested party.
Party: Farm Disselfontein No. 77: Leon Ferreira Enviroworks: Mark Day (25 October 2013)
(25 October 2013)
The party indicated their inability to comment at
this stage due to other engagements and asked
whether there would be further opportunity to
do so and whether it was necessary to comment
at this stage.
The EAP responded that further participation
periods would follow if the scoping report is
approved by the Department of Environmental
Affairs.
Party: Department of Water Affairs: Pias Enviroworks
Lerotholi (28 October 2013)
37
Three hard copy reports were submitted to the An acknowledgement of receipt was signed by
party for comment.
Rose at the DWA Bloemfontein Office.
Party: Mr. Albert Reynders (Remainder of Farm Enviroworks: Mark Day (29 Jan 2014)
Naauwesfontein No.78 (9 Nov 2013)
Enviroworks received a letter from the affected
landowner dated the 9th November 2013 on the
21st November 2013. The letter was sent in
confirmation to a conversation between Sidala
Energy Solutions and the landowner.
The letter requests that backwater (inundation)
of the dam not inundate the “island”, saying that
this should not push further back than the little
water table at the foot of the islands.
This report acknowledges receipt of this
comment and confirms that the following will be
established during the next public comment
period with the landowner:
-
The degree of inundation to occur to the
island referred to by the party;
Verify the location of the dense stand of
trees and degree of inundation to occur
on these;
Furthermore, the sites will be assessed
by the ecological specialist as part of the
Terrestrial Biodiversity Survey.
Furthermore, a dense clump of trees on the river
bank a kilometre upstream should not be
inundated as there are plans to creating a resort
This correspondence shall be provided to the
here.
DEA on completion of the 40 day comment
period coupled to this report and be reflected in
the Draft EIR.
Party: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Enviroworks: Mark Day (29 Jan 2014)
Forestries: Directorate: Forestry Management –
Ms. Jacoline Mans (18 Nov 2013)
On the 18th November 2013, Ms. Mans provided
comment on the Final Scoping Report (DAFF
Reference Number: F13/11/2/222), identifying
sections of the National Forest Act (NFA) (Act 84
of 1998) which presides over the protection or
protected tree species.
Furthermore, any cutting, destroying or
disturbance to protected species requires the
issuing of a NFA license.
comment and confirms that the described
measures shall be taken for removal of
protected tree species during construction
activities and that consideration of the roles and
responsibilities as described in the NVFFA shall
be shall be considered in the draft EIR.
Lastly, it was noted that DAFF administers the
National Veld and Forest Fire Act (NVFFA) (Act
101 of 1998), and that consideration to the roles
and responsibilities therein be made.
Party: Department of Water Affairs: Lower Enviroworks: Mark Day (29 Jan 2014)
Orange Management Area – Mr. Shaun Cloete
38
(16 Jan 2014)
The party registered as an interested and
affected party, requesting that the Department
be informed should any water resource be
crossed during the project and whether
wastewater will be generated.
comment and confirms that an application to the
Department of Water Affairs has been submitted
in terms of activities listed in Section 21 of the
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998).
Furthermore, the party made reference to the
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) noting that
for all uses an Authorisation from DWA would be
required.
Enviroworks has been engaging with the Upper
Orange Management Area of DWA in this regard.
Correspondence made with the Department
shall be provided to the DEA on completion of
the 40 day comment period coupled to this
report and be reflected in the Draft EIR.
Party: Mr. George Steytler of Remainder of Enviroworks: Mark Day (29 Jan 2014)
Farm Stoffelshoek 81 and Remainder of Zuurgat
82
The party was identified as an affected party and The party has been registered as an interested
as such time has been engaged with by Sidala and affected party and shall be engaged with
during the next comment period (amended FSR)
Energy Solutions.
and in the draft EIR phase.
All stakeholder and I&AP’s were provided with the opportunity to access the draft and final scoping
reports. These parties shall continue to be engaged with during the EIA phase.
A RESPONSE SHALL BE PROVIDED DURING THE NEXT COMMENT
PERIOD ON THE AMENDED FSR
39
3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.1. A Background on Hydropower
Paish (2002: 538) describes hydropower as being in use for some 2, 000 years, but primarily for the
milling of grain. In the 19th century, waterwheels were experimented with as a potential means for
generating electricity and towards the end of the century, wheels were being replaced with turbines
as investigations into the technology grew. The first half of the 20th century saw exceptional growth
in the use of hydropower and today it stands as the most significant of ‘renewables’ for electrical
power production globally (Paish 2002: 539). This is substantiated by the International Journal of
Hydropower and Dams which in 2000 reported that the global technically feasible hydro potential is
estimated at 14 370 TWh/year of which 8080 TWh/year is deemed economically feasible. At the
time, hydropower provided 19% of the world’s electricity, compared to 2% for all other renewable
forms combined (Paish 2002: 539).
The fundamental process involves the conversion of water pressure by hydro-turbines into
mechanical shaft power that subsequently drives an electricity generator or other machinery.
Herein, the available power is proportional to the product of pressure and volume flow rate,
demonstrated by the following formula:
P=ŋǷgQH
Figure 2: Hydropower Formula
In Figure 2, P is the mechanical power produced at the turbine shaft (Watts), ŋ is the hydraulic
efficiency of the turbine, Ƿ represents the density of water (kg/m³), g is the acceleration as a result
of gravity (m/s²), Q correspond to the volume flow rate moving through the turbine (m³/s) and H is
the pressure head of water over the turbine (m) (Paish 2002: 540).
Energy is therefore derived to make power by the force of water moving from a higher elevation to a
lower elevation. Water then turns the turbine at enormous speeds. The turbine rotates, via a
connected shaft to an electrical generator, and this generator creates electricity. It is the turbine and
generator working in combination that converts "mechanical energy" into "electric energy".
According to energy experts, South Africa has moderate hydroelectric potential, and the
establishment of small hydroelectric projects around the country could help provide a sustainable
future energy supply (Fouche 2011). Because of the shortage of energy supply faced in South Africa,
the government is in the process of authorising independent power producer licences. This process
is also aimed to diversify the countries energy mix by bringing in renewable energy technologies.
Small hydro power plants (<10MW) is one of the qualifying criteria for the refit and will contribute to
the country’s target of 10 000 GWh by 2013. The proposed South Hydropower Site may sell Carbon
Credits through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as recognised by the UNFCCC.
The Orange River is major river confluence in South Africa supporting a myriad of land use along its
banks, such as agriculture, mining and recreation. The river further supports a functioning aquatic
ecosystem and provides an important perennial source of water for surrounding terrestrial
ecosystems. Factors of predictable water supply together with the availability of comprehensive
information on current and future flows, make the potential for the operation of a hydropower
facility possible. Key features of such supply are that the system maintains a constant flow through
interventions by various water management schemes upstream to the site of the proposed
development; and that this flow is timed and predictable.
3.2. Project Description
The preferred Rooikat Hydropower Site would be located on the Orange River at 29°27'3.58"S;
23°54'58.38"E, between Portion 3 of the Farm Deelfontein No. 77 and Portion 3 of the Farm Eskdale
No. 204. The facility would have an installed capacity of approximately 22W, through the
construction of a weir used to create generation head in combination with a powerhouse at the
same location. The final generation capacity in MW shall be determined during detailed design and
reported in the EIA report.
Farms affected by the weir and inundation are all privately owned and no land claims are lodged on
these properties.
The design of the proposed hydropower site is currently in pre-feasibility stage and as such, exact
dimensions of the weir have not been confirmed (these will be included in reports prepared during
the EIA process). Currently, dimensions will not exceed the following values:




Height of the weir: 30m from river bed to FSL;
The maximum height of the structure including flood protection: Not more than 45m;
Length of the weir: Not more than 400m;
Width of the weir: Not more than 55m at the base.
The 3D model in Figure 3 provides an in-situ example of what the weir could look like.
A significant impact caused as a result of the height of the weir, would be the inundation of
upstream areas and creation of a dam at the full supply level. Although the weir would impound
water, it would not inhibit the flow of water downstream and thereafter not alter the flow regime.
The following table provides detail on components of the weir and associated infrastructure:
No Infrastructure
Weir and Permanent Infrastructure
1 Weir
2 Powerhouse
41
Description
The weir will either constitute an axial flow Vertical Kaplan
Turbine or a Bulb Turbine. A weir of up to 30m in height is
anticipated, which may incorporate flood gates into the
design.
To be inside the weir as per the PFS design. A bulb type
turbine may be opted for that may result in a smaller power
house outside the weir.
No
3
Infrastructure
Utility building adjacent to dam wall
4
Dam gate crane shed
5
Back-up generator
6
7
Powerhouse inlet
Powerhouse outlet
8
Hydro
mechanical
generators
9
MV switch/transformer yard
10
11
12
13
14
turbines
Description
The utility building will be needed in the close vicinity of the
dam to house the control room, stores and small workshop.
The building will also have ablution facilities with a French
drain. The building will most probably not be bigger than
150 m².
A shed would be constructed on the dam wall to house the
dam gate crane. The shed will most probably be a steel
structure with a corrugated roof.
It will be required to install a back-up generator to be able
to operate the dam gate crane and other emergency
equipment during a power failure. In all likelihood the
generator will be smaller than 200 kVA (still to be sized).
The diesel generator will have a diesel tank to operate
independently for 24 hours and there will be a bund wall
around the generator to prevent spillage of diesel. The
diesel tank would be located above ground also in a bunded
area.
Inlet constructed to feed the water flow to the turbines.
Outlet constructed to feed the water flow back into the
stream.
and Most probably vertical/horizontal axial turbines with a
governor and control system, specific protection systems
will be installed to prevent oil from contaminating the
powerhouse and/or water.
A step-up transformer to be installed outside the power
house. The MV switchgear will most probably be installed
inside the powerhouse. The transformer yard will be
constructed adjacent to the dam wall at which the voltage
will be stepped up from most probably 6.6 kV to 33 kV. The
yard will have a gravel floor and will be about 25m² and
fenced off. The transformer will be oil based and a
concrete stand with a bund wall will be constructed to
prevent oil spillage.
Access routes
Access roads will be constructed or upgraded, but will be
not more than 8m wide and as such will not trigger GNR
544 activity 22.
Transmission line from powerhouse to This will entail a 33kV powerline from the powerhouse to
PoC
Disselfontein substation. The transmission line will be
constructed to Eskom standards and specific attention will
be given in design to mitigate impact on avifauna.
PUC at substation
The PUC will consist of two set of links, a meter and
possible MV breaker all on poles above ground. This will be
an area of 15m².
Fencing
A fence will be erected around the site, which may need to
be electrified with intruder detection systems.
Boat launching dock in the close vicinity of Construction of a small launching dock for a small boat in
the dam wall
close vicinity of the dam wall to enable the HPS operator to
42
No
Infrastructure
15
Bailie bridge
Description
inspect the dam wall.
To assist with construction activities as well as reduce
operational impacts on roads and reduced fuel
consumption.
Temporary Infrastructure during construction
1
2
3
4
5
Construction of temporary coffer dams
Construction of temporary diversion
works
Construction of temporary construction
routes
Required for river diversion
Required for river diversion
Some roads to be constructed in dam basin will be flooded
after construction. Additional construction roads may be
needed on either side of the dam wall. Roads to be layered
with aggregate and should be not more than 8 m wide but
will not trigger GNR544 activity 22.
Mining of existing quarry for the road Existing quarry to be used.
Still needs to investigate
aggregate
whether existing quarry will yield sufficient material. The
quarry will have to be opened horizontally to get access to
the aggregate.
Quarrying material in river bed up stream Material will be excavated upstream of the dam wall during
of dam wall for dam construction
construction. The quarry will be inundated after
construction.
6
Establishment of temporary construction A temporary construction camp will be constructed with all
camps
amenities associated with a construction site camp, i.e.
lodging, canteen area and ablution facilities. Chemical
toilets will be required, while water will need to be
extracted for the construction period. Water will most
probably be trucked in for human consumption.
7
Water extraction from the river during Water will be extracted from the river for construction
construction
purposes. Confirmation of water availability will be applied
for to DWA.
Storage of aggregate and waste soil during It will be required to store some aggregate and excess soil
construction
during the construction period. The contractor will be
required to instil environmental protection measures to
prevent excessive generation of dust. This will be reviewed
and mitigation measures included in the EIA
8
3.2.1. Site identification and selection
River Cross-section
The river cross-section and stage-capacity curve of a site have a major influence on the economic
viability of hydropower facilities. According to BKS (2012: 14), the stage-capacity curve indicates
which site will have the lowest height for the highest storage volume and the river cross section
should indicate which site has the least cost for a certain height.
In addition to cost effectiveness of a weir, the foundation compatibility to the concrete structure is
important and therefore acceptable bearing pressures in the foundation for a concrete gravity
43
structure and excavation depth are critical. The cross-section of the river remains an important
consideration, due to its dependency on the weir height. For example, a weir height of 20m has a
length of 320m, but if this was increased to a height of 40m the length would increase to 410m.
The preferred location alternative for Rooikat was identified as having an efficient river cross section
through comparison of the top length and the volume of concrete required to construct a 30m high
weir at each site and position. For this site, the length of the crest shall not exceed 400m.
Site geology
BKS (2012: 20) conducted a preliminary review of the foundation conditions at the site, which were
based on the published 1:250 000 Geological Map 2922 Prieska; geological information on the
Torquay Dam site contained in a report on the Orange River Development Project and Replanning
Study prepared for DWAF by BKS and Ninham Shand in May 1998; as well as Google Earth images of
July 2005.
The investigation found that the river sections and lower flanks of the site are underlain by andesitic
lava of the Allanridge Formation, Ventorsdorp Group. Lava is overlain by tillite of the Dwyka Group in
some sections. Based on current desktop investigation and assessment of the site (including a
topographical survey), the location is assumed to be suitable. To verify this, a geotechnical
investigation will however be required to assess the condition of local bedrock and subsurface
materials for their suitability to support the proposed weir. The study will entail the drilling of
vertical boreholes in the river channel, left flank, right flank and diversion channel. Boreholes of a
depth between 15m and 35m will need to be bored. Each will have a diameter of 0.074m, of which
there shall be 32 in total. A general authorisation process with DWA is being followed for this
activity.
Stream Flow Hydrology
An investigation by Van der Merwe (2013:6) of the stream flow was conducted, based on historical
flow records provided by three gauges (D3H012-just below the Vanderkloof Dam; D3H008 – at the
weir on the Orange River just upstream of Douglas; and D7H012 – just below the confluence of the
Orange and the Vaal Rivers). Due to the location of the proposed site location of the Rooikat Site,
gauge D3H008 provided the most representative data.
o
Historical Flow Data
On reviewing historical flow data, Van der Merwe (2013:6) determined that those measures
recorded between periods 1992 to 2012, represented current development levels and operational
conditions in the catchment and, as such, was used to determine flows at the required assurance
level.
Despite the value of gauge D3H008, it does not reflect the long term records of extreme events with
longer recurrence intervals. As such, a Water Resource Yield Computer Model (WRYCM) was used by
Van der Merwe for the pre-feasibility phase.
o
44
WRYCM computer software
Van der Merwe (2013:7) obtained the WRYCM model configuration for the Orange and Vaal River
system from DWA, which is used to manage and plan water resource developments on these
watercourses. Rigorous testing of the configuration of the system was conducted and the results
thereof widely accepted.
Two relevant scenarios exist on this model, namely current day (2009 development model) and the
future development level with Lesotho Highlands Phase 2 (Polohali Dam included). The WRYCM was
used to simulate monthly flows of a 64 year period for both time slice periods. Ten sequences were
generated, which gave a low incidence in the probable range of the flow duration curves. Of these
ten sequences, sequence 100 represented the average and was used further to determine the
hydropower potential at different assurance levels.
The historically gauged flows at D3H008 show how the modelled flows with the inclusion of Polohali
Dam, will primarily influence the peak flows with little impact on flows below 100 m 3/s. The
historical data from gauging weir D3H008 further shows key flow percentile of 50% and 90% are 66
and 31 m3/s respectively. The flow duration curve, together with a total turbine access, pipe and
generator efficiency of 85%, dam size, net generating head and an initial estimate of 0.5m friction
loss were all factors considered in determining the power potential (Van der Merwe 2013:7).
o
Flood Hydrology
Based on investigations by Van der Merwe (2013:8), normative statistical, deterministic and
empirical methods for flood calculations could not be applied in the conventional manner due to the
large catchment areas, complexity of the catchments and the impact of the flood attenuation in the
Gariep and Vanderkloof Dams.
As a result of the aforementioned points, the recommended flood hydrology of the Gariep and
Vanderkloof Dams were utilised to address this aspect. The contributing areas were determined
from published data on the tertiary and quaternary catchment areas.
Peak discharge estimates were determined through the review of historical flow data and the latest
Flood Frequency Analysis for both Gariep and Vanderkloof Dams, as provided by the DWA,
generated by Doornkuilen Flow Gauging Weir and Markdrift Flow Gauging Weir.
According to Van der Merwe (2013:10), the estimated virgin inflows into Vanderkloof Dam were
based upon the recommended peak inflow discharges at Gariep Dam by means of multiplying the
recommended inflow peaks for Gariep Dam with the square root of the two catchment areas of the
dams. Estimated peak discharges for the proposed site were then based upon the virgin Regional
Maximum Flood (RMF) for both Gariep and Vanderkloof Dams, as well as upon the result of the
Statistical Methods EV1 Distribution at Doornkuilen Flow Gauging Weir. These results were
compared in order to arrive at recommended peak discharges at the proposed site.
It should be articulated that the current water level on this section of the Orange River does not
fluctuate naturally, as the flow is regulated on release from the Vanderkloof Dam which has a far
higher impact (variation by more than 300m3 on a daily basis) than the normal wet and dry season
variations.. As such the proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site would not lead to significant fluctuations
in water level, but rather maintain a dam upstream at approximately 1040 masl Full Supply Level,
which will cover an area of approximately550Ha.
45
o
Access Routes
Two permanent access routes (of not more than 8m in width thus not triggering GNR544 activity 22)
are proposed for construction, one will be located on the Western side of the Orange River which
would connect to the R387 road through Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237. A second will be
situated on the Eastern flank of the Orange River connecting to the R385 road through Portion 2 of
Farm Eskdale No. 204. These routes are still being determined and will be assessed by the ecologist
and heritage specialists. Aggregate for these roads is to be obtained from an existing borrow pit on
site. The Department of Mineral Resources is being consulted in this regard.
o
Powerline Routes
One 33kV powerline route is proposed and shall be selected from two options proposed by the
engineer. This will connect to the Disselfontein Substation on Portion 8 of the Farm Disselfontein
No.77. The route would traverse over Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237 and for a short distance
over Portion 8 of the Farm Disselfontein No.77.
46
Figure 3: Example of a 3D Modelled Hydropower Site similar to the proposed Rooikat site (Source: BKS 2013).
3.3. Project Alternatives
Regulations 28(j) of Government Notice R.543 of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2010, recognises that in
a scoping report, detail on alternatives needs to include “a description of identified potential
alternatives to the proposed activity, including advantages and disadvantages that the proposed
activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the community that may be affected by the
activity”.
According to Chapter 1 of this same notice, “Alternatives”, in relation to the proposed activity,
means different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may
include alternatives to(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity;
The type of activity to be undertaken;
The design or layout of the activity;
The technology to be used in the activity;
The operational aspects of the activity; and
The option of not implementing the activity.
On scoping of the Rooikat Hydropower Site, several alternatives have been identified and include
three location alternatives, two design alternatives, two technology alternatives and a no-go option.
A description of each alternative is provided below, together with the advantages and disadvantages
thereof.
3.3.1. Location Alternatives
The project team has identified three alternatives using the definition”(a) the property on which or
location where it is proposed to undertake the activity” namely:
Table 6: Location Alternatives
Alternative 1
Latitude: 29°23'6.17"S
Longitude: 23°55'25.15"E
Affected farms: Situated between Remainder of Farm Hereford No. 202 and Remainder of Farm
Slypsteen No. 204.
The site is characterised by alluvial-driven coarse-grained sands with a greater occurrence of
vegetation further up the slopes and on rocky outcrops. Riparian areas were disturbed in parts by
the grazing of livestock. The river was dominated by bedrock or alluvial, course-grained sand.
Surrounding land use included grazing for livestock like cattle and sheep.
Advantages:

The narrow cross-sectional area of this location is desirable for the construction of a weir due to
savings in construction costs.
 No advantages to environment or community are identified compared with other location
alternatives.
Disadvantages:
 This alternative is not viable due to a geological fault discovered on a site inspection by the
geotechnical engineer which would require extensive and costly construction interventions.
The proposed project would therefore not be pursued at this location, negating the positive
impacts the proposed project would have.
 Possible inundation of a building owned by Dr Waltie Vermeulen, trustee of the Deelfontein
Trust 399/2000, owner of Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237.
 Disadvantages to the environmental and community are all construction and operational
phase impacts listed in chapter 5.
Alternative 2
Latitude: 29°26'24.16"S
Affected farms: Situated between Portion 3 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 and Portion 1 of Farm
Deelfontein No. 237.
The site can be described as similar in features to Alternative 1.
Advantages:
 Alternative 2 has existing road access in the form of a gravel track. This would however need
to be upgraded if this location alternative were to be developed.
 No further advantages to environment or community identified compared with other
location alternatives.
Disadvantages:
 Alternative 2 was the preferred alternative until early December 2013. At this time,
engagement with the I&AP, Dr Waltie Vermeulen, trustee of the Deelfontein Trust
399/2000, owner of Portion 3 of Farm Deelfontein No. 237 occurred. During engagements
with Dr Vermeulen, it was discovered that significant visual impacts and to a lesser extent
noise impacts were identified and associated with location Alternative 2.
 Disadvantages to the environmental and community are all construction and operational
phase impacts listed in chapter 5.
Alternative 3
Latitude: 29°27'3.75"S
Affected Farms: Situated between Portion 3 of Farm Eskdale No. 204 and Portion 1 of Farm
Deelfontein No. 237.
49
The site can be described as similar in features to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Advantages
 After engagements with Dr Vermeulen, the project team identified an alternative site
approximately 1.3km upstream of Alternative 2. The site was investigated, inspected by the
geotechnical engineer, and found to be feasible. Alternative 3 then became the preferred
alternative because of the lower visual and noise impacts.
 Alternative 3 leaves a longer stretch of river downstream and associated ecological systems
unaffected by the proposed project compared with Alternatives 1 and 2.
 No further advantages to environment or community identified compared with other location
alternatives.
Disadvantages
 No additional disadvantages to environment or community are identified compared with other
location alternatives.
 Disadvantages to the environmental and community are all construction and operational phase
impacts listed in chapter 5.
3.3.2. Design Alternatives
The project team has identified three alternatives using the definition”(c) the design or layout of the
activity” namely:
Table 7: Design Alternatives
Alternative 1
Description: Alternative 1 involves the construction of the system using a diversion weir, offtake,
headrace conduit (canal or tunnel), power house and tailrace.
Illustration of the diversion weir concept.
[Source: www.Hydroventura.com (Accessed: 26
January 2014)
Advantages
 Zero or minimal inundation upstream of the diversion weir.
50
Disadvantages
 Water is diverted from the river at the diversion weir and returned to the river through the
tailrace. This leaves the intervening stretch of river with reduced flow, which has negative
impacts on the environmental and/or community.
 Due to the low average gradient of the river in the proposed location, the headrace would
need to be very long (>20km), with associated high capital costs and head losses. This layout
is not considered feasible given the expected tariff (Rand/MWh) payable to the proposed
project. The proposed project would therefore not be pursued using this layout, negating
the positive impacts the proposed project would have.
Alternative 2
Description: The construction of a weir used to create generation head in combination with a
powerhouse at the same location.
Illustration of the weir with
dam wall (centre)
[Source:
http://re.emsd.gov.hk/english/
other/hydroelectric/hyd_tech.h
tml (Accessed: 26 January
2014)]
Advantages
 Lower civil costs compared to Layout Alternative 1.
 Attenuation of the flow of the Orange River through inundation.
Disadvantages
 Inundation upstream of the weir and associated negative impacts on the environmental
and/or community.
3.3.3. Technology Alternatives
The project team has identified three alternatives using the definition”(d) the technology to be used
in the activity” which would then be considered on the preferred location alternative.
Due to the high-flow, low-head nature of the proposed project, impulse turbines (Pelton, Turgo,
Cross-Flow turbines) are not feasible. In-flow propellers, which operate at zero head are not a viable
technology at this scale and are vulnerable to flood events and debris. This leaves the use of reaction
turbines as reasonable options. Francis turbines are not considered a feasible option because of the
head-flow conditions of the proposed project, where Kaplan turbines are considered as the feasible
technology.
51
Table 8: Technology Alternatives
Alternative 1
Vertical Kaplan Turbine.
Illustration of the Vertical Kaplan
Turbine [Source: BKS 2012]
Advantages:
 Potential lower hydro-mechanical cost.
 Potential higher efficiency.
Disadvantages:
 Potential higher civil cost.
 Potential larger powerhouse and marginally higher visual impact.
Alternative 2
Bulb Turbine
Illustration of the Bulb Turbine
[Source:
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcours
e-contents/IITKANPUR/machine/chapter_7/7_14a.
html (Accessed 26 January 2014)]
Advantages:
 Potential lower civil cost.
 Potential smaller powerhouse and associated marginally lower visual impact.
Disadvantages:
 Potential higher hydro-mechanical cost.
 Potential lower efficiency.
52
3.3.4. The No-Go Option
“The option of not implementing the activity” has the following advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages

Negative impacts on the environmental and/or community of all other alternatives would be
avoided. These include the inundation and associated impacts on land upstream to the
proposed development and visual impact of the dam wall.
Disadvantages

The proposed project would not be developed, negating the positive impacts the proposed
project would have, which include job creation, the generation of increased electricity
supply with a stable base load, the creation of a dam area for tourism and recreational
activity to take place on.
53
4. BROAD DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1. Climate
The region experiences summer and autumn rainfall with very dry winters (Mucina & Rutherford
2006: 517). A Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) of between 250mm – 450mm occurs, whilst frost is
of reoccurrence in winter. The mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures for the nearby
town of Douglas are 39.7°C and -4.6°C for January and July respectively.
4.2. Topography
The sites is characterised by undulating terrain with rocky dolerite sills prevalent whilst the river is
flanked by relatively steep slopes.
4.3. Geology and Soils
Mucina and Rutherford (2006: 517) described this as a highly fragmented on Ecca and Dwyka Group
sediments and Karoo dolerites as well as on Ventersdorp Supergroup lavas. The area is characterized
by dolerite sills forming ridges and plateaus and slopes of koppies and small escarpments with
erosion terraces prevalent. Alternating layers of mudstone and sandstone are overlain by dolerite
sills. Prominent soil forms are Mispah and gravel-rich Glenrosa forms of origin from Jurassic dolerite,
whilst calcrete-rich soils occupy the lowlands (Mucina & Rutherford 2006: 517).
A geotechnical investigation, which is an engineering requirement, is proposed to be conducted as
part of the feasibility process. This shall entail the drilling of a series of pilot holes in and adjacent the
watercourse to determine the suitability of bedrock to support such a proposed structure. A General
Authorisation in terms of Section 21(c) and (i) is being undertaken to obtain permission from the
DWA to conduct this investigation.
4.4. Ecological Status
The executive summary of the Ecological Impact Assessment was available at the date of publishing
of this document, hence an overview of ecological aspects has been provided for at this time. At
present, the site is not known to contain any ecological systems receiving protection under South
African legislation, such as National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas, or sensitive
areas as identified in an environmental management framework in terms of Chapter 5 of NEMA.
As described by Ross (2013:6), the following ecological aspects were investigated:
o
o
o
o
General riparian and habitat assessment;
Aquatic habitat assessment;
Aquatic macro-invertebrates; and
Fish community assemblages
4.4.1. Terrestrial Ecological Survey
The following information was compiled using available information from the forthcoming Aquatic
and Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Survey.
Figure 4: The view of the proposed site facing upstream (facing
south)
4.4.1.1. Terrestrial Habitat
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:7): “Observations from general habitat
descriptions and “walk-about” surveys at the two proposed sites and strategic points within the area
that would be inundated by the construction of the in stream barriers showed that the riparian
habitat had remained largely intact, with the surrounding land use locally being dominated by
livestock (cattle and sheep) and game farming. The Orange River presents a reliable water source
within an otherwise arid environment and therefore formal irrigation schemes are also common
within the area that supports a thriving agricultural sector. Riparian vegetation remained largely
intact. The banks of the watercourse are largely alluvial-driven coarse-grained sands. Deposition
and transport of these sands is common and a natural feature of the river system. Actual soil erosion
was considered low throughout the survey area.”
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:10): “The riparian zones of the river fall within an
azonal vegetation unit of the freshwater wetlands biome, known as Upper Gariep Alluvial
Vegetation. The conservation status of this vegetation unit is regarded as Vulnerable, largely due to
limited extent of the unit and the lack of formal conservation. The upper slopes of the macro-channel
and the areas surrounding the riparian zones on either side of the river are classified within the
Eastern Kalahari Bushveld bioregion of the Savanna biome, known as Vaalbos Rocky Shubland. This
vegetation unit is regarded as Least Threatened. Both vegetation units within the survey area were
well represented and considered to be in natural climax state of succession. The riparian zones are
favoured for grazing of livestock and therefore some disturbance impacts were evident. This was
mostly through the increase in density of Acacia mellifera, which is a response to a degree of
disturbance. Overgrazing and undue trampling by livestock was not, however, considered an
impacting or deleterious feature of the survey area. Grass species observed were typical of the
vegetation unit and were indicative of shifting alluvial soils as well as nutrient-poor rocky soils.
55
Pioneering species (indicative of recent disturbance features) were only noted sporadically, and were
mostly limited to the dispersive aeolian and alluvial soils common throughout the survey area.”
“The floral species communities observed were not impacted by encroachment of exotic invasive
species, with exotic species making up a minor and insignificant proportion of the biomass and
species diversity.”
Protected floral species and species of conservational concern
“Noted protected tree species, as per the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998) included Acacia
erioloba and Boscia albitrunca. As these individuals would be destroyed by the inundation of the
area, a permit will be required from the DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) to
remove (relocate) individuals of these species. Further protected species as per Schedule 2 of the
Northern Cape Conservation Act (Act 9 of 2009) were also identified.”
“No further RDL (Red data listed) species were noted during the field survey, but the vastness of the
area meant that comprehensive site searches were not possible and therefore the possibility of RDL
species occurring that may be impacted by the proposed development activities may exist.”
4.4.1.2. Fauna
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:11): “The survey areas incorporated vast expanses
of largely natural habitat. The area is utilised for livestock and game farming, and therefore large
areas are enclosed within fences. This largely excludes larger mammals that would have historically
occurred within the region due to lack of migratory freedom. An analysis of the historical and
reference distributional data for the region indicated that the survey area could support various RDL
species that could potentially be impacted by the proposed development activities. The analysis of
the various taxonomical groups showed a relatively poor overall diversity of species. This is largely
attributed to the general aridity of the area. Of the 55 mammalian species that have distributional
records that include the region, only one is regarded as being RDL, namely the Arid-ecotone Black
Rhinoceros. This species does not occur within the areas that would be impacted and therefore is not
applicable to the survey. Five species are regarded as Near Threatened and a further three as Data
Deficient. These are limited to small and illusive species, including small carnivores. Of these species,
only the Spotted-necked otter is dependent on the aquatic environment. This species will benefit
from the proposed development due to the expansion of aquatic habitat and the inclusion of quieter
areas for this species to inhabit.”
“There are 263 avifaunal species recorded from the region, of which 21 are regarded as being of
conservational concern and nine being RDL. The RDL species are the larger raptors that are subject
to poisonings by farmers of livestock, collisions with power lines and habitat destruction. The
majority of these species are known to make use of large trees for nest building, which is a feature
that does not occur strongly within the impact area. The remaining species are known to frequent
mesic savanna and grasslands for breeding and foraging purposes and therefore could be displaced
by the inundation of the habitat. None of these species were observed during the field survey,
however. Part of the development is the construction of power line infrastructure, which could pose
a collision and/or electrocution risk, depending on the magnitude of the overhead lines. Birds will
utilise the watercourse as a navigational aid and will therefore fly parallel with the watercourses as
part of migratory routes. Any overhead power lines that cross watercourses will therefore be
56
required to be fitted with bird flappers to make the lines more visible and to abate this negative
ecological impact. Power line towers could also provide a positive feature. In a landscape that is
largely void of larger trees, these towers could provide valuable nesting habitat for larger raptor
species. The inundation of the valley will also provide an expansion of the water habitat that is a
scarce habitat unit within the area. Much of the peripheral areas will be shallow enough to invite a
larger population of wading species. This will cause an unnatural shift in the species community
structures, which may be positive in some aspects (provision of supporting habitat for existing
species), but negative in other aspects (will invite species that would otherwise not be found in the
area). This is not regarded as a significant impact as the inundation of the habitat will merely
increase the extent of an existing habitat feature and not create an undue transformation of one
habitat unit into another.”
“Only three species of amphibians are recorded from the region. This limitation on species diversity is
largely due to the overall aridity of the area as well as the watercourse being largely unsuitable to
support breeding of frogs in general. The inundation of the habitat at both sites will increase suitable
breeding habitat for frogs by providing quiet backwater areas and therefore it is thought to be
beneficial to amphibians.”
“There are 43 reptilian species recorded from the region that includes the two proposed sites, none of
which are regarded as being RDL. Endemism within the area is relatively high due to habitat
specialist species. Inundating the river valley will drown many of the rock faces that support reptilian
species, so these species will be displaced. This is a feature that is not readily mitigated, but the
vastness of the open areas throughout the region means that this impact will be largely
insignificant.”
“Invertebrate species of conservational concern recorded from the region (at provincial level) include
a relatively high number of mygalomorph spider species (generally trapdoor and baboon spiders).
Female species of this group are sedentary and inhabit burrows and excavations, only leaving them
for brief periods to hunt or during mating season. Inundation of the habitat will impact these
species. This is also thought to be of minor significance as the river valley floods cyclically and
therefore the chance of viable populations becoming established within the areas that will be flooded
out is thought to be minimal. This is also largely true for scorpion species (also a protected
invertebrate taxon). It should be noted that no RDL faunal or floral species were noted during the
field survey.”
4.4.2. Aquatic Ecological Survey
4.4.2.1. Aquatic Habitat
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:7): “Both of the proposed sites fall within the
Upper Orange Water Management Area (WMA-13) and within the Nama Karoo Aquatic Ecoregion.
The Orange River at the survey sites is characterised by a perennial, deep, fast-flowing watercourse
where the watercourse constricts to a single channel through a smooth bedrock-dominated area.
Instream aquatic habitat was found to be dominated by bedrock or alluvial, coarse-grained sand
deposited as sandbanks or along the edges of the watercourse. Freshets and flood-flows would shift
the position of these deposition areas, depending on the severity and nature of the flood event.
Aquatic submerged and emergent vegetation was largely absent, as were algal beds. The survey
57
sites were therefore assumed to not support a great diversity of aquatic macro-invertebrates due to
a habitat characteristic considered to be a limiting factor.”
4.4.2.2. In-situ Water Quality
Results generated by the in-situ water quality parameter testing found no limiting factors that could
potentially limit the aquatic biota.
4.4.2.3. Macro-invertebrate sampling and integrity
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:9): “Interpretative SASS5 reference data for the
Nama Karoo (lower) Ecoregion (Dallas, 2007) show that overall relatively low scores can be expected.
This is largely due to the physical nature of the watercourse, being dominated by bedrock with a
general lack of vegetation. The macro-invertebrate community structures from the SASS5 sampling
showed the system to fall generally within a C/D Present Ecological State (PES) category, which falls
in line with the reference data (SANBI, 2009) for the system. This biological integrity class was noted
for both the North and the South Sites, which is largely due to the close proximity of the two sites, the
general lack of isolated impacting features between the two sites as well as the general similarity in
habitat types.”
4.4.2.4. Fish sampling and species community integrity
The following is an extract taken from Ross (2013:9): “Sampling for fish was limited due to the nature
of the watercourse that did not suit the standard collection methodologies (electronarcosis in
wadeable depth). Fish were sampled within the peripheral zones, but these represented juveniles
and sedentary species. Reference and historical data were therefore utilised for impact evaluations
on the fish community structures. Two reference sites (DWA, 2007) are located within the same
quaternary catchment areas as the two proposed sites. The fish sampled during the survey only
represented four of the possible 11 species expected at the sites.”
“The reference data sourced through DWA include species regarded as obligatory migratory species.
These are species that require migratory freedom in order to complete a portion of their life cycle.
These species include Labeobarbus kimberleyensis, Labeobarbus aeneus, Labeo capensis and Labeo
umbratus. These species typically migrate upstream annually in order to locate suitable spawning
grounds. The proposed development activities at both sites include the construction of 20m
(approximate) instream weirs, which will pose as an absolute migratory barrier at each site and
exclude a considerable extent of the river system to recruitment of species from downstream. This
will have a significant impact on the overall ecological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem and will
require mitigation.“
“The provision of fishways (or a fish bypass facility) at each site must be implemented in order to
abate this impacting feature. Various fishway designs and concepts will suit the site – the choice of
which is dependent on the geomorphological features particular to the site as well as the design
considerations of the weirs, hydro power infrastructure, intake chambers (design and locality) and
other technical feasibility aspects. Further consultation with the design engineers will be required to
refine the designs, but fishways have been shown to be highly effective in allowing migrating fish to
overcome barriers with little to no physiological impacts. Design concepts to explore are the possible
provision of a bypass natural rock-ramp fishway at each site. This would, however, be dependent on
detailed surveys of the surrounding topographies and other technical features. If this is found to be
an impracticable solution, then a vertical slot design incorporated into a series of pre-barrages, rock
58
ramps and slopes could mitigate a water level difference of 20 m. These aspects do, however,
require consultation with the design engineers when more detailed site information becomes
available.”
4.5. Heritage Status
4.5.1. Archaeological
Archaeologist, Ms. Karen van Ryneveld of Archaeomaps CC conducted a Phase 1 Archaeological
Impact Assessment in September 2013. A brief discussion of the outcomes thereof are as follows:
Based on the outcomes of the a pre-feability assessment (including review of the SAHRA 2009
database, Cultural Resource Management (CRM) projects, the SAHRA Built Environment Database –
Northern Cape and the McGregor Museum Archaeological Database) and a field assessment, the
following resources were determined:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Site SH-S1 – Tourist Accommodation (Contemporary Period) – S29°26’17.4’’; E23°55’00.2’’
Site SH-S2 – Farmstead (Colonial Period) – S29°26’47.6’’; E23°54’30.6’’
Site SH-S3 – Livestock Enclosure (Colonial Period) – S29°27’29.3’’; E23°54.45.8’’
Site SH-S4 – Livestock Enclosure (Colonial Period) – S29°28’08.9’’; E23°54’24.2’’
Site SH-A1.1 – MSA and LSA occurrence – S29°28’04.4’’; E23°54’24.1’’
Site SH-A1.2 - MSA and LSA occurrence – S29 Middle Stone Age and Late Stone Age
occurrence –27’42.7’’; E23 MSA and LSA occurrence –54’31.1’’
SH-A2.1 - MSA and LSA occurrence – S29°28’ 04.4’’; E23°54’25.1’’
SH-A2.2 – MSA and LSA occurrence – S29°27’27.0’’; E23°54’00.7’’
SH-A3.1 - MSA and LSA occurrence – S29°26’44.5’’; E23°55’07.0’’
At the time of the study, heritage resources were not investigated within the proposed access roads,
a rock art survey must be conducted and an investigation for heritage resources across the extent of
the expected inundation levels must be conducted.
The scope of work for this requirement can be seen in Table 9 of Chapter 6.
4.5.2. Paleontological
Palaeontologist, Dr.Lloyd Rossouw of Paleo Field Services, conducted a Phase 1 Paleontological
Impact Assessment in September 2013. A succinct discussion of the outcomes thereof is as follows:
A pedestrian survey indicated that the proposed hydroelectric site footprint shall fall primarily over
Ventersdorp Supergroup lavas, whilst the power line options would traverse unfossiliferous glacial
tillites and a variety of surface gravels, reworked calcretes and windblown sands. No fossil remains
or localities were observed within the surface deposits during the field survey.
59
4.6. Visual and Aesthetic Status
The proposed development would be located in the Orange River watercourse, which is surrounded
by steep slopes. The nature of the surrounding topography as undulating would shield the presence
of such a facility unless when in immediate proximity to the structure. Furthermore, the undulating
state of the river would lessen the conspicuousness of the facility to upstream or downstream uses.
A Visual Impact Assessment (Version 1) is being conducted by Ms. Emmerentia Marais of
Enviroworks and is to be externally reviewed by Professor Francois Retief of the Centre for
Environmental Management, Potchefstroom University. The study identified three visual receptors
in the vicinity of the proposed facility, namely:
o
o
o
Farmstead, 4.2km distance from the development site in a North-Westerly direction
Secondary road, 5.2km distance from the development site in a South-Westerly direction
A house adjacent to the river, 0.3km distance from the development site in a South-Westerly
direction
The scope of work for the visual and aesthetic status can be seen in Table 9 of Chapter 6.
4.7. Land Use
The precise land uses underway on properties adjacent to the site are not currently verified, whilst
those underway on properties nearby include:
-
Livestock farming;
Conservation;
Hunting;
Safaris and tourism;
Mining;
Agriculture;
Cultural; and
Water abstraction.
It is anticipated that through further engagement with surrounding landowners and stakeholders,
land use information will be refined. Therefore, a detailed description of such features will be
described in forthcoming stages of this assessment process.
4.8. Socio-Economic Structure of the Area
4.8.1. Economic Issues
The Local Economic Development (LED) strategy of 2012, found that the Thembelihle Local
Municipality maintained an economic profile, dominated by Government Services, which
contributed 21.6% of GDP to the local economy in 2010. This sector was followed by the Trade
(19.3%), Finance (18.9%) and Agriculture sectors (17.7%). Aligned with these economic sectors, most
workers received employment from Government Services (±800 workers), followed by Agriculture
(±700 workers) and the Trade (±500 workers) sectors (Thembelihle Local Municipality Integrated
Development Plan).
60
The strategy continues to detail economic growth during 2009/2010 of 1.7% which equalled that of
the District average. Over the period 2000-2010, an average annual growth rate of 0.8% was seen as
inadequate to reduce the unemployment rate (Thembelihle Local Municipality Integrated
Development Plan).
4.8.2. Social Context
The Integrated Development Plan (2012: 5) was recorded to have a population of almost 15 000
people in 2010, which contributes 8.1% to the District and 1.3% to the Provincial population. A
decline of 1.4% over 10 years was recorded in the population. A gender profile of 50.6% female and
49.4% male was evident in 2010. The working age group contributed 64.9% to the local population.
Seventeen point five percent of adults residing in the municipality did not complete any type of
formal education, whilst 5.3% of adults obtained a tertiary education. In 2010, a total of
approximately 4000 household dwellings were estimated to exist in the Thembelihle municipal area,
and since 2000, this number has grown on average by 0.1% per annum. Of these structures, more
than 63% are classified as house or brick structures, of which 82% had access to electricity. HIV/Aids
prevalence in the municipality was recorded as 5.2% in 2010, whilst is below the national average of
12.6% of the same year.
61
5. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The following chapter provides identification and description of potential environmental impacts to
be caused by the proposed development. Given the location of the proposed weir and dam on a
water resource as significant as the Orange River, a multitude of direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts must be considered. Each impact has been described and contextualised to
demonstrate relevance to the development proposal.
Several sources have contributed towards the determination of environmental impacts to date.
These include the conducting of an initial site visit on the 23rd July 2013, the use of available
information provided in the Draft Inception Report from engineering investigations (BKS 2012),
literature on typical impacts caused by dams and a degree of technical and site information from
Sidala Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd.
5.1. Construction Phase Impacts (Direct and Indirect)
Construction phase impacts would occur within a distinctive construction footprint area during a
construction period of approximately 24 months. The following items are potential direct and
indirect impacts to the social and biophysical environment:










Dust Generation;
Erosion and sedimentation of the river and banks;
Impact on river characteristics;
Disturbance to flora, fauna and habitat;
Visual Impact;
Impact on traffic;
Recreational and Tourism Impact;
Noise pollution;
Impact on heritage resources;
Impacts to the local economy.
5.1.1. Dust Generation
Construction activities such as the blasting of rock, excavation of soil and vehicle movement
normally associated with civil construction works will result in dust generation from both point
(construction site) and nonpoint sources (unpaved roads). The quantity of dust generated would be
influenced by the season in which the construction takes place and by prevailing wind directions at
the time. Considering that construction would occur in wet and dry seasons, management measures
would need to be ensured through the construction and operational phase Environmental
Management Programme (EMPr), such as the regular watering of access roads and working areas.
5.1.2. Erosion and sedimentation of the river and banks
The proposed development would entail construction activities in and adjacent to the Orange River
including the blasting of a diversion channel and construction of the cofferdam, dam wall and a
bailey bridge.
62
As an implication of these works, rock and sediment layers of the river and banks would be
disturbed. This may lead to exposed areas becoming susceptible to deterioration and the potential
siltation of water downstream. This would be aggravated during wet periods and by any extreme
rainfall events. Furthermore, the proximity of works in and adjacent to the watercourse could result
in the accidental discharge of chemicals, e.g. oil and diesel, from machinery or vehicles into the
watercourse.
Further impacts include the possible loss of topsoil, creep of construction activities (such as the
movement of personnel and vehicles) beyond the designated footprint area and the dislodging of
riverbank sediment.
5.1.3. Impacts on river characteristics
Due to the construction of civil works in the watercourse and on the banks, the river characteristics
at the weir and dam wall site, as well as upstream and downstream shall be altered. ‘Characteristics’
as a broad term encompasses a multiplicity of factors defining the river system. These include the
flow of water, in-stream habitat integrity, fish assemblages and riparian and in-stream vegetation.
These and other parameters may all potentially be affected by the construction activities like
blasting and excavations.
In light of the above, extensive works within the river basin may modify water quality, lead to the
loss of system dynamics, and loss of the ability to maintain continuity of this linear ecosystem.
Diversion of the flow during construction will ensure that flow is not impeded during the course of
construction. No water will be taken out of the system on a permanent basis and neither will it be
stored permanently in any way.
The quarrying of materials from the riverbed upstream of the proposed development is proposed to
obtain materials to use in construction of the dam wall. This will affect the riverbed through the loss
of rock and alter the character of the benthic zone. This impact will need to be assessed during the
EIR phase. Furthermore, consultation with the Department of Mineral Resources will be made to
obtain any permits in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 that
may be necessary for quarrying.
5.1.4. Disturbance of fauna, flora and habitat
The clearing of vegetation and levelling of terrain in the construction footprint area and associated
corridors would result in the loss of vegetation and disturbance of habitats, which may affect, alter
and/or fragment ecosystems functioning on and adjacent to the site. Furthermore, the noise
generated from operations may disturb fauna near to the construction area. Due to the prevalence
of rocky outcrops and undulating terrain along the Orange River, habitat accommodating plant
communities and small fauna may deteriorate.
Prior to site establishment however, the EMPr would require that a search and rescue of the
construction footprint be conducted to inspect for relocation of protected and conservation worthy
plant species as well as any fauna discovered within the area. The mining of aggregate from a gravel
pit (quarry) will need to take place to supply materials for the road construction. The associated
activities of quarrying shall pose an impact on fauna, flora and habitat.
63
5.1.5. Visual Impact
The visual impact of the construction activities will be influenced by the topography and relief of
surrounding areas. Users of elements of landscape like rocky outcrops and the river for recreational
and tourism activities could be affected by the development. This may be limited by the dynamic
features of the topography abutting the Orange River, possibly improving the visual absorption
capacity of the landscape, in concealing site activity and lowering the extent to which it can be
observed from surrounding viewpoints.
Sources of this visual impact could be the movement of construction equipment and vehicles on site
resulting in dust generation. Other activities generating a visual impact may be the clearing of
vegetation and construction of paved roads, the latter which would create a new visual feature to
the landscape. Management of these activities would be important to control this impact.
5.1.6. Impact on Traffic
Construction vehicles would have to make use of the exiting provincial roads, the R387 and R385 to
access roads to the site. If a bailey bridge is constructed over the river, it would become possible to
access the site from only one side. The traffic volumes on the road will increase by ±10 trucks per
day for the duration of the construction phase. Impacts on traffic flow during construction could be
mitigated by ensuring that all regulations relating to traffic management are followed. Clearances
from road authorities would need to be obtained for heavy load vehicles or where abnormal loads
are being transported.
5.1.7. Recreational and Tourism Impact
The Orange River is a popular destination for canoeing and fly-fishing activities. Several tour
operators utilise this section between Hopetown and Douglas of the river whilst an annual canoe
marathon also takes place on the watercourse. These operators would potentially be affected by
construction activities on the river, and may prohibit access to the downstream area of the river.
Furthermore, the natural aesthetic of the river would be altered, an attribute that could undermine
the operations of these companies.
5.1.8. Noise pollution
Noise can be any acoustic phenomenon generating an aural sensation that is perceived as a
disturbance or irritation. Intrusive noise may be generated from sources uncharacteristic to the area.
Day-to-day activity at a construction site, which may produce noise pollution, includes drilling,
blasting, machinery and vehicles. Despite these, the proposed site location is situated away from
noise sensitive receptors. Furthermore, topography of the site may reduce the extent to which noise
can be carried.
5.1.9. Impact on heritage resources
Heritage resources include both those associated with archaeology (study of the cultural landscape
through recovery and analysis of stone, rock art, etc.) and palaeontology (the study of prehistoric life
through recovery and analysis of fossilised materials. These features of the landscape can be
identified as far as possible through investigations of a superficial layer, however the due to the
large scale of the development, hidden resources may be unearthed during construction and
damaged or destroyed. The address this aspects, a Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment and
64
Phase 1 Paleontological Impact Assessment are being conducted. These would need to account for
areas to be affected by associated infrastructure, like power lines and roads.
5.1.10. Impact on the local economy
Considering that the proposed development would be in construction for a period of approximately
36 months, job creation will be generated for civil and building works as well as for the installation of
machinery and equipment. Employment would be provided for high, medium and low skilled works,
with the highest number of positions to be offered at a medium skilled level. It is anticipated that
over the course of the construction period, over 900 individuals will be employed.
5.2. Operational Impacts (Direct and Indirect)
Once construction of the proposed development is completed, impoundment of the dam would take
place. As a result, the land adjacent to the river upstream of the dam site would be inundated. This
transformation represents the forerunner to the majority of potential impacts caused during the
operational phase. The direct and indirect impacts can be summarised as follows:










Impacts of the dam on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity;
Impacts of the powerline on avifauna;
Impacts of the dam on aquatic habitat and fish migration;
Impacts of the dam on agriculture and associated infrastructure;
Impacts of the dam and dam on tourism and recreational uses;
Visual impact of the dam wall and dam;
Impact of noise;
Impact of the dam on heritage resources;
Impacts to the local economy; and
Sedimentation and erosion in the river.
5.2…. Impact on downstream users
The Rooikat Hydropower Project was conceived as a ROR plant. ROR refers to a hydropower system
which does not make use of water storage. The flow into the dam therefore equals the flow out of
the dam (Qin = Qout). ROR systems are considered to be renewable energy due to the low
environmental impacts associated with such Systems.
The project could, however, be operated so as to provide a small degree of storage in order to
attenuate the flows released by VanderKloof Dam for peak hydropower generation (these flows are
approximately 350m3/s). The operational regime of the project will be determined during detailed
design in conjunction with DWA so as to maintain or improve the security of supply to all
downstream water users. This effect would, in addition, be of benefit in mitigating the negative
environmental impacts associated with the unnatural releases from Vanderkloof Dam.
5.2.1. Impacts of the dam on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity
The inundation of upstream land adjacent to the river area would transform terrestrial habitat,
killing plants and displacing animals, especially those species that prefer the habitat of valleys would
permanently lose their habitat to impoundment. A loss of vegetation cover could lead to increases in
sedimentation and a decrease in water quality. The areas affected by the dam comprise of the
vegetation types, Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland and Kimberly Thornveld, both of which are considered as
65
Least Threatened. The sporadic occurrence of Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation (Vulnerable) may
occupy the dam area and as such would be lost. A potentially positive attribute of the dam would be
to provide new habitat for water birds in an arid area, which generally lacks natural permanent
water bodies. This would also be beneficial as a refuge for water birds during the dry-season or
drought events.
5.2.2. Impacts of the powerline on avifauana
The construction of a 33kV powerline and associated effects on avifauna would need to be
investigated by the ecological specialist. Although the size of the powerline will be relatively small in
comparison to typical ones associated with renewable energy facilities (these are frequently 132kV
in capacity), however the risks of electrocution of birds and collision of birds with the power line
would need to be addressed.
5.2.3. Impacts of the dam on aquatic habitat and fish migration
The impoundment of water, although not altering the flow of water to downstream users, would
compromise the character of the aquatic ecosystem. The modification of the habitat could lead to a
change in the quantity of sediment moving through the watercourse, and the character or
composition of materials associated with the beds and banks of the watercourse. Furthermore, the
weir will pose as an absolute migratory barrier to fish and invertebrate species effectively
fragmenting the ecosystem connectivity of the river. Fish bypass facilities in the form of fishways will
need to be investigated. A consequence of this migratory barrier will be eventual population and
species isolation, as well as the decline in fish numbers and population vigour.
5.2.4. Impacts of the dam on agriculture and associated infrastructure
Agricultural activity along the Orange River depends on water pumps and pump stations located
adjacent to the river for provision of water for irrigation of crops. The inundation of land adjacent to
the river may result in the flooding of agricultural land and associated pump infrastructure. An
Agricultural-economic study will be undertaken to investigate the agricultural potential of the land
to be inundated and adjacent area through the conducting of a soil capability assessment. The soil
will further be evaluated in terms of grazing potential, annual crop yield and perennial crop yield. No
currently cultivated land falls within the dam area at a 1040mas full supply level. However, some
semi circular pivots (approximately 28Ha) will be impacted by the raised water level and will cease
operation.
5.2.5. Impacts of the dam and dam on tourism and recreational uses
Tourism and recreational activities within the area are largely associated with the Orange River,
which includes canoeing, white water rafting and fly-fishing. Associated camping areas are also
located adjacent to the river to accommodate tourists and visitors. The area of the river to be
inundated also contains two well-known rapids, Hell’s Gate and Hubbly Bubbly, which would be lost
to flooding. As such, the character of the river system and its appeal to certain users would be
altered.
A positive consequence of the dam could be to provide enhanced recreational benefits of the river,
through the provision of flat water for boating, paddling, skiing and camping. This could in turn boost
the tourism potential of the area by acting as an attraction to visitors as well as to serve the local
community.
66
5.2.6. Visual impact of the dam wall and dam
The proposed weir will have a dam wall of up to 30m in height (river bottom to FSL). Considering the
generally flat to undulating nature of the terrain and rural location of the dam site, this could pose as
a significant visual impact on the surrounding landscape and could be visible from several kilometres
away. A Visual Impact Assessment will need to be conducted to determine visual receptors and the
level of significance of the impact.
5.2.7. Impact of Noise
Noise is likely to be generated by turbines, however due to the position of this machinery
underground, it is anticipated that the distribution of this noise will be restricted to the immediate
vicinity of the dam site. This aspect shall be explored by the civil engineer and discussed further in
the draft EIR and mitigation measures can be adopted and incorporated into the draft EMPr, if
needed.
5.2.8. Impact of the dam on heritage resources
The flooding on land adjacent to the watercourse will result in the long-term transformation of land.
Any heritage resources situated in this area such as middle to late stone age artefacts and rock art
would be flooded, which could represent a loss in cultural heritage. To identify and locate any such
resources, a specialist shall survey the area affected by inundation and conduct a rock art survey
with landowners.
5.2.9. Impact to the local economy
Considering economic activities adjacent to the river, the proposed hydropower site would not likely
pose a negative impact (this shall be assessed in the EIA phase and addressed in the draft EIR.
Irrigation pump costs for farmers would possibly decrease as a result of the pumps being relocated
from their current locations to the edge of the inundation area. The economic impact of the dam
wall on fly-fishing, anglers and rafting activities could be mitigated by the dam and creation of flat
water on which various tourist and recreational activities could occur.
5.2.10. Sedimentation and erosion of the river
The decrease in sediment and nutrient transport to the river downstream of the dam may cause the
loss of habitat for fish and other species. Due to the regulated volumes of water by the Vanderkloof
Dam upstream, the water level of the dam will remain constant, which will prevent a ‘tidal effect’ on
surface soils that could make these vulnerable to erosion. The general aridity of the area means that
self-remediation is a slow process and resultant disturbed soils will be vulnerable to erosion.
5.3. Decommissioning Impacts (Direct and Indirect)
On decommissioning of the proposed development, it is anticipated that direct and indirect impacts
would largely be the same as those identified for the construction phase. These would include:





Dust Generation;
Disturbance to flora, fauna and habitat;
Visual Impact;
67





Impact on traffic;
Recreational and Tourism Impact;
Noise pollution;
Impact on heritage resources;
Decommissioning is anticipated to take between 12 to 18 months to be completed. This process
would involve the disconnection of the hydropower facility from the electricity grid, the
disassembling of all built structures and features and rehabilitation of all areas to reinstate the
landscape to pre-construction character and function.
68
5.4. Cumulative Impacts
According to the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2010, “cumulative impact, in relation to an activity means
the impact of an activity that in itself may not be significant, but may become significant when
added to the existing and potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or
undertakings in the area.”
DEA (2004) assigns a temporal and spatial association to the description, noting that development
has in the past not accounted for the accumulation of impacts when considered in combination with
other activities. This has resulted in the need for Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA), (also referred
to as Cumulative Effects Assessment), which address impacts on a local, regional and sometimes
global scale.
DEAT (2004) describes principles of cumulative effects assessment which, amongst others, are the
aggregate of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions; the total effect, including both
direct and indirect effects, on a particular resource, ecosystem, and human community of all actions
taken; and the focusing of analyses on meaningful environmental receptors.
With relevance to the proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site, cumulative impacts can be considered in
various contexts, including the cumulative effect of:






multiple hydropower facilities over a spatial trajectory of the Orange River and the
implication to ecosystem health, i.e. fish migration – categorised as a compounding effect
and time lag effect (DEAT 2004);
land transformation of riverine ecosystems adjacent to the Orange River between Douglas
and Hopetown to flooding by inundation – categorised as fragmentation (DEAT 2004);
multiple renewable energy projects at a local and provincial scale and justifiability of their
combined commissioning;
the affect on grid stability and capacity;
multiple dam sites on recreational rafting activities and the potential thereof;
flow of income into local communities during an assumed 3 year construction period and the
operational periods of multiple renewable energy facilities.
For the purpose of this Scoping Report, the reference to renewable energy projects is made only,
while a CIA considering effects of the proposed Rooikat Hydropower Site, in combination with a
broader range of development on the Orange River, associated ecosystem and human community,
shall be undertaken as part of impact assessment by the EAP, for inclusion in the draft EIR.
The following list of proposed projects (Table 8) was extracted from a register containing details of
renewable energy projects for which the DEA has received applications, and in some cases issued
Environmental Authorisation on. Accompanying maps (Figures 5 and 6) has been generated
illustrating the locations of these projects identifiable by names provided for in the map and referred
to in the table.
The list was provided by the DEA on formal request, and has been reduced to reflect applications
that fall within the same local municipal boundaries as the Rooikat Hydropower Site (namely the
Siyancuma Local Municipality and Thembelihle Local Municipality). It is further recognised, in
accordance with the principles of CIA that cumulative impacts on resources, ecosystems and human
69
communities should not be limited to administrative boundaries. However, due to the level of
investigation associated with scoping, these were considered as to be useful regional boundaries to
assume. This approach was adopted for solar renewable projects, which comprised the majority of
applications to the DEA. Dissimilarly, all hydropower projects within the region have been included
as these would pose strain on water resources of the Province.
Table 9: List of renewable energy projects within the Siyancuma and Thembelihle Local
Municipalities, Northern Cape
DEA Reference No.
Project Title
Techn.
MW
Status
Map Code
12/12/20/2682
Proposed Keren Energy Disselfontein Solar Plant on the Farm
Disselfontein No. 78
CPV
10
EA
Keren
14/12/16/3/3/2/276
Construction of the 90MW Graspan Photovoltaic (PV) Power
Facility on the remaining extent of Farm Graspan No. 172
within Siyancuma Local Municipality
PV
90
EA
Graspan 1
14/12/16/3/3/2/283
The Proposed Establishment of a Group Mounted
Photovoltaic Solar Farm Outside Hopetown, Northern Cape
Province
Proposed Khweza Power Photovoltaic Electricity Generation
Facility, Siyathemba Local Municipality, Northern Cape
Province
The Construction Of The 100 Mw Solar Energy Facility Near
Douglas Within The Siyancuma Local Municipality, Northern
Cape Province
The Development Of The Herbert Photovoltaic (PV) Power
Station 2 With A Generation Capacity Of Up To 20mw On
Portions (Portion 50 And 51) Of The Farm Atherton No.82 At
The Herbert Sub-Station In Douglas, Northern Cape Province
Proposed Construction Of A 30mw Photovoltaic (PV) Solar
Facility At The Hebert Substation In Douglas, Northern Cape
Province
-
-
EA
Hopetown
PV
8
EA
Khweza
PV
100
-
Douglas
PV
20
-
Herbert 1
-
-
-
Herbert 2
The 40mw Greefspan PV Power Station And Associated
Infrastructure, Douglas, Northern Cape Province
The Proposed Development Of A PV Plant With A Capacity Of
Up To 15mw At Kwartelspan, Douglas In Northern Cape
Province
Proposed 75MW PV solar facility on farm Klein Kareelaagte
168, Siyancuma Local Municipality
PV
40
EA
Greefspan
PV
30
EA
Greefspan
PV
75
Pending
Klein
Kareelaagte
The 10mw Graspan Photovoltaic (PV) Power Facility On The
Remaining Extent Of Farm Graspan (Farm No. 172) Within
The Siyancuma Local Municipality In The Northern Cape
Province
Proposed development of a PV plant with the capacity of up
to 15MWP as well as new substation at Kwartelspan,
Douglas, Northern Cape
PV
10
-
Graspan 2
PV
20
-
Kwartelspan
Proposed construction of the Ramphele 1 Photovoltaic (PV)
Solar Energy Facility near Ritchie, Northern Cape Province
PV
50
-
Ramphele 1
12/12/20/2197
12/12/20/2512
12/12/20/2637
12/12/20/2643
12/12/20/2645
14/12/16/3/3/1/484
14/12/16/3/3/2/419
14/12/16/3/3/1/478
14/12/16/3/3/1/533
12/12/20/2051/1
70
14/12/16/3/3/2/568
The proposed hydropower station and associated
infrastructure at Boegoeberg dam on the Orange River, near
Groblershoop, Northern Cape Province
Hydro
-
Pending
Groblershoop
12/12/20/2012
The Proposed Hydropower Station On The Orange River Near
Kakamas Within The Kai! Garib Local Municipality, Northern
Cape Province
Hydro
12
-
Kakamas
14/12/16/3/3/2/598
Proposed Run of the River hydropower station and
associated infrastructure on the Orange River, near
Onseepkans, Northern Cape
Hydro
-
Pending
Onseepkans
14/12/16/3/3/2/507
The proposed Meerkat Hydropower Site, Siyancuma Local
Municipality, Northern Cape Province
Hydro
18
Pending
Meerkat
TOTAL
308
In total, 17 renewable energy projects are proposed within both local municipalities, which
comprises a combined area of 24776 km². Of these, 6 were listed as having received an
Environmental Authorisation, whilst 4 project applications were listed as ongoing. Thirteen of these
projects investigated photovoltaic solar technologies, whilst four are for hydropower facilities.
Combined, these projects have the potential to produce up to 308MWh of electricity. These facilities
combined would occupy and transform a significant area of land for the purpose of renewable
energy and it would need to be determined whether the combined value may constitute an overallocation, if compared in ratio to other land uses in the areas. In comparison of solar farms with
hydro facilities, the placement of solar farms on land not suitable for agriculture and not under
pressure by other development, versus the construction of weirs, which alter a significant water
resource, may suggest that solar energy be a more suitable technology for the region.
5.3.1. Identified and Described Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts in CIA, as described above as resources, ecosystems and human community,
of other renewable energy projects within these municipalities are considered to be as follows:
5.3.1.1. Resource related impacts
Renewable energy technologies, as the name suggests, are derived from renewable sources. These
sources, in this case the sun for solar farms and river water for hydropower facilities, are the
resources under exploitation. Of these, water can be managed, with flows regulated through the
building of dams in rivers. In the case of the Orange River, two dams with hydropower facilities are
in operation, whilst new sites are being proposed by Independent Power Producers along the course
of the river from source to sea.
The Vanderkloof Dam is located approximately 100km upstream of the proposed Rooikat
Hydropower Site. Constructed in 1977, the dam produces 240MW. Approximately 100km upstream
71
of the Vanderkloof Dam, the Gariep Dam produces. Both dams have permanently altered the
character of the Orange River, from a once free flowing watercourse, to a regulated system
managing the flow of water downstream and in the process also generating hydroelectricity.
The Rooikat Hydropower Facility is one of four development applications currently proposed on the
Orange River (these located in the vicinity of Hopetown, Douglas, Kakamas and Onseepkans
respectively). The Rooikat Hydropower Site is situated approximately 18.5km upstream of the
Meerkat Hydropower Site. The proximity of these two sites if constructed, would result in
inundation extending from the Meerkat weir site to the furthest upstream point of inundation of the
Rooikat weir site, a total distance of approximately 35km. Despite this impact, flow would not be
altered, as the weir would allow for continued movement of water through the dam downstream.
Notwithstanding, it would need to be determined, should all four hydropower sites be
commissioned and in combination with the Vanderkloof and Gariep Dams, if an accumulation of
impacts would result in the exceeding of certain hydrological and ecological DWA thresholds . This
would need to be explored in the CIA.
5.3.1.2. Ecosystem related impacts
Should the commissioning of multiple weirs and dam walls along the Orange River occur, the
following indirect impacts, as described in Section 5.2 of this report, may occur:





Impacts of the dam on aquatic habitat and fish migration;
Disturbance to flora, fauna and habitat; and
Impacts of power lines on avifauna.
When considered in combination with other renewable energy proposals in this region, the
transformation of terrestrial land of varying forms (such as undeveloped flat terrain and riparian
areas) could occur. These impacts would need to be evaluated in the CIA.
5.3.1.3. Human community impacts
Similarly to ecosystem impacts, an accumulation of impacts caused by the transformation of land
(through instalment of solar farms and inundation of land by dams) would result in:






Impacts of the dam on agriculture and associated infrastructure;
Impacts of the dam and dam on tourism and recreational uses;
Visual impact of the dam wall and dam;
Impact of noise;
Impact of the dam on heritage resources; and
Visual impact could become a contentious issue if multiple renewable developments were to be
commissioned, considering the relatively flat and undulating character of land in this area. The local
economy may however benefit during the construction and operational periods of such facilities
through employment generation and a flow of income into local communities.
72
Figure 5: Renewable Energy projects in the Siyancuma and Thembelihle Local Municipalities
Figure 6: View of the Meerkat and Rooikat Hydropower Sites and associated inundation areas
73
6. PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE EIA
The proposed development requires the undertaking of an Impact Assessment process in accordance with GN R543
of the EIA Regulations, 2010. This aspect of the EIA process follows completion of the Scoping Phase and has several
objectives. Primarily, these are to provide an evaluation of the biophysical and social environments affected by the
development proposal; undertake a comprehensive public engagement process to document any issues and
concerns raised by I&APs; to gauge potentially significant impacts associated with development proposal; and to
recognise and suggest reasonable mitigation measures to avoid impacts, reduce unavoidable impacts and offset
residual impacts.
To address this process, this chapter has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 28(1)(n) of GN R 543 of the
EIA Regulations, 2010 and sets out the proposed approach to be followed on commencement of the Impact
Assessment Phase, referred to as the Plan of Study for the EIA (PoSEIA). The PoSEIA aims to describe how the EIA
Phase for the proposed Hydropower Facility will proceed, detailing specialist studies to be undertaken, their
respective Terms of References, and forthcoming public participation processes. As such, it is through the PoSEIA
that findings of the scoping phase shall be taken forward and evaluated in detail.
6.1. Description of the tasks to be undertaken during the Environmental Impact Assessment phase
In the previous chapter, a range of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development
were identified and described. During the Environmental Impact Assessment phase, specialist studies will be
integrated into the Environmental Impact Report and impacts shall be assessed through the adoption of impact
rating methodologies, described below.
On commencement of the Impact Assessment Phase, key tasks to be undertaken will be as follow:
 Provide a detailed description of the proposed activity and affected social and biophysical environment;
 Specialists will conduct studies to address more significant issues identified during the Scoping phase
(discussed under 6.1.1 below). A summary of the findings and recommendations will be provided and copies
of these reports included as addendums to the report;
 Provide a description of the needs and desirability of the proposed development and its alternatives,
including the advantages and disadvantages that the development proposal may have on the social and
biophysical environment;
 The investigation and conduct a comparative assessment of alternatives including –
o Site alternatives, which represent different properties or locations at where the development could
be constructed;
o Design or layout alternatives, such as varying blueprint or orientation options;
o Routing alternatives for transmission lines and roads, which would determine the path by which
electricity is transferred to the substation and site access is gained;
o The ‘do-nothing’ alternative, which would mean that the facility is not constructed and the status
quo would prevail;
 The potential environmental impacts will be assessed and evaluated through the use of impact rating
methodologies (discussed under 6.1.2 below);
 A detailed public participation process (discussed under 6.1.3 below);
 An assessment of cumulative impacts;
 Account for all assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge;
 The provision of an environmental impact statement;
74

The assignment of mitigation and management measures for incorporation during the construction,
operational and decommissioning phases through the preparation of a draft Environmental Management
Programme (EMPr).
6.1.1. Specialist Studies
Typically during the EIA phase specialists may be required to undertake further specific investigations on the key
issues identified during the scoping phase. The specialist studies then form part of the EIA Report and inform the
impact assessment. During the scoping process for the Rooikat Hydropower Facility, investigations have led to the
identification of several studies necessary to address potentially significant impact areas.
The DEA has indicated which specialist studies they feel need to be undertaken and are included in the table below.
The DEA’s recommendations were made in their rejection letter, dated 20 January 2014, of the Final Scoping Report
that was dated October 2013 (NEAS Reference: DEA/EIA/0001781/2013).
Table 9 details the specialist studies to be undertaken, their associated terms of reference and the specialist to
conduct the work:
Table 10: Specialist studies to be undertaken and terms of reference thereof
Aspect
Activities to be undertaken
Specialist
Soil, agricultural The Agricultural Impact Assessment will assess land to be
potential and affected by inundation upstream of the proposed Rooikat
agri-economic
Hydropower Site.
assessment
Professor Theo
Kleynhans
Agricultural
economist and
professional
valuer
The main aim of this study is to:
(Registration
 Determine and compare the agricultural value of the number 5198)
proposed sites;
 Determine and compare the impact of the project on
agricultural production (before and after scenario);
Dr. Freddie Ellis
 Determine the impact that the proposed project may have – Soil Scientist
on the sustainability of the surrounding agricultural units (Pr. Sci. Nat
and land units upstream.
Registration
number
400158/08)
The study is discerned by two distinct parts:
Terms of reference: Soil
i. Give a description of the methodology and baseline
information on the project.
ii. A soil assessment, using existing and new information (field
visit to areas) on a semi-detail scale, to determine the
inherent properties, mainly physical and morphological, of
potential irrigable soils within 30m height above present
river level, for the areas covering all farms under
consideration. Soils will not be investigated that falls under
75
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
the 1 year flood line.
Brief assessment (reconnaissance scale and using land type
information) of soils outside the 30m level on the rest of the
farms in order to get an idea of the potential for future
irrigation development.
Based on the classified soils a basic soil legend will be
compiled and used to compile a soil map on a suitable scale
to describe the natural distribution of the soils and to be
used to derive at the suitability for irrigation development.
Description of the soils in the different map units in terms of
their physical and morphological properties.
Evaluation of the general suitability of the soils in terms of
grazing potential, annual crops and perennial crops with
special reference to the highest income crop presently
grown under irrigation in the area, which will serve as the
reference against which the potential of the area for
agricultural development will be measured. This information
will be used in the agricultural evaluation (see below).
The environmental significance of the potential impacts of
the developments and loss of agricultural land will be
provided and described in terms of the NEMA requirements.
A comparative analysis (written and tabled) of the sites in
question will be provided and described.
Mitigation measures to negate potential negative impacts
and recommendations for the proposed sites and
surrounding lands will be proposed.
Terms of Reference: Agricultural economic study
i. A “before-and-after” assessment of the financial-economic
impact of the proposed development on the viability of the
potentially affected farms. Visit potentially affected farms
to determine the nature and extent of existing farming
operations, including farming activities on the potentially
affected areas along the Orange River, in order to develop a
typical farm model to show the financial viability of the
“before” situation.
ii. Model the “before” situation, including the contribution of
the potentially affected areas, and the “after” situation,
excluding the contribution of the potentially affected areas,
and compare the two.
Terrestrial
Ecology, Flora
and Fauna and
Habitat
76
The Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Assessment (will include a Mathew Ross
riparian and wetland impact assessment) will assess all land- (Enviross) - Pr.
based ecology of the site and affected inundation area, Sci. Nat
accounting for floral and faunal features of the area, with a
further review of protected species and those of conservation
concern.
The study is discerned by two distinct parts:
Terms of Reference: Flora
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
A desktop survey will be undertaken from available
database sources and literature that will allow for a
theoretical species list as comprehensive as possible for
the proposed development site. These sources include,
amongst others, the PRECIS data from POSA (SANBI),
Mucina & Rutherford (2006), Low & Rebelo (1998) and
Acocks (1988);
The provincial nature conservation authorities will be
consulted for potential RDL species or known sensitive
features and lists for the area;
A habitat evaluation in terms of ecological integrity,
vegetation type representation and present status
covering the diversity of habitat types observed
throughout the proposed development area will be
undertaken;
Major vegetation units will be identified and vegetation
analyses undertaken to establish the status of the
vegetation unit;
The proposed development site will be scanned for the
presence of any RDL plants and habitat to potentially
support such plants that have been historically recorded
within the area;
Areas of significance that support high floral diversity
richness, primary vegetation and that are significant in
supporting and maintaining floral diversity within the
proposed development site will be identified and mapped.
Terms of Reference: Fauna
i.
Mammals
 A potential biodiversity list will be compiled from
available literature sources;
 Short habitat descriptions of all habitat types
pertaining to RDL species will be given;
 The habitat types will be evaluated for potentially
supporting RDL species;
 A species list, detailing their specific conservation
status will be compiled from the field observations.
ii. Avifauna
 Detailed analyses of the habitat units available to
avifaunal habitation associated with the three
alternative dam sites;
 A complete potential biodiversity list will be provided;
 The conservation status of each species listed will be
determined;
77

The potential species list in accordance to the habitat
unit availability will also be compiled;
 The species recorded during the field survey will be
listed, which will enable species community structures
in terms of dominant species, exotic species, etc. to be
compiled;
 Species will be identified through direct visual
observations, call identification or by other means (e.g.
owl pellet identification);
 Habitat evaluations will be undertaken for suitability for
supporting various RDL species recorded from the
region;
 Impacts of the nature of the proposed development will
be identified and mitigation measures provided for to
lessen the expected impacts.
iii. Herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles)
 A complete potential biodiversity list will be provided;
 The conservation status of each species listed will be
determined;
 The potential species list in accordance to the habitat
availability will also be compiled;
 The species recorded during the field survey will be
listed, which will enable species community structures
in terms of dominant species, exotic species, etc. to be
compiled.
 Habitat evaluations will be undertaken for suitability for
supporting various RDL species recorded from the
region.
iv. Invertebrates
 General habitat evaluations will be conducted to
determine the potential sites for supporting the highest
species diversity;
 RDL species habitat suitability will be evaluated;
 Thorough site searches within habitat regarded as
having the highest potential for supporting relevant
RDL species will be undertaken;
 Identification and interpretation of invertebrate
community structures from the species identified
through trapping and thorough searches within the
various habitat units.
Terms of Reference: Riparian and wetland features


78
Identification of any significant landscape features or
rare or important vegetation associations such as
seasonal wetlands, alluvium, seeps, quartz patches or
salt marshes in the vicinity;
Any riparian and wetland areas will be delineated
accordingly and be mapped;
 The sensitivity of these areas will be determined based
on habitat integrity, level of disturbance and species
richness.
Aquatic
The Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Assessment will assess all Mathew Ross
Ecology,
aquatic-based ecology of the site accounting for in-stream (Enviross) - Pr.
Riparian and in- habitat integrity, macro-invertebrate integrity and fish Sci. Nat
stream
assemblage integrity. It will also investigate fishways, to enable
vegetation, fish migration of fish upstream and downstream of the weir.
habitat
This study can be discerned into four distinct parts:
Terms of Reference: In-stream habitat integrity
The in‐stream habitat integrity will be assessed at 2 sites
associated with each survey area. The habitat integrity
assessment makes use of various accepted indices, including
IHAS (Index for Habitat Assessment System) to assess the
present physical habitat status of the river segment. The in‐
stream habitat integrity includes the taking of in situ water
quality at the various sites. These parameters include
temperature, electro‐conductivity, oxygen content and
concentration, total dissolved solids and pH. These parameters
are useful in interpreting the biological data.
Terms of Reference: Macro-invertebrate integrity
This aspect of the study will be carried out by a current South
African Scoring System (SASS5‐accreditted) practitioner. Macro‐
invertebrate assessments of aquatic ecosystems are based on
the theory that the community structures of these organisms
present within a system are an indication of the short to
medium term duration of an impact. This aspect makes use of
an accepted protocol for aquatic macro‐invertebrate collection
and identification from various aquatic habitats.
This data, together with the data from the in‐stream habitat
integrity data, allow for an assessment of the biological integrity
of an aquatic system in terms of macro‐invertebrates. The
water quality data is then cross‐referenced with this data to
interpret the overall effects of the impacts on the macro‐
invertebrate communities.
Terms of Reference: Fish assemblage integrity
The fish assemblage integrity is assessed as the fish community
structure within a system as an indication of the long term
effects of an impact. This assessment makes use of standard
protocols and indices, including standard collection techniques
within various aquatic habitats and then application of the FAII
79
(Fish Assemblages Integrity Index).
This index also makes use of a physical habitat assessment, with
the biological data being cross‐referenced with the physical
habitat availability data to determine the biological integrity of
the system in terms of fish community structure integrity. The
water quality data are then cross-referenced with this data to
interpret the overall effects of the impacts on the fish
communities.
Terms of Reference: Fishway Survey
To determine the necessity of a fishway to be implemented at
the sites of the proposed hydropower facilities, the hydrological
alterations that the proposed weir will impose on the system
will be assessed. The habitat quality both upstream and
downstream of the proposed weir will also be assessed. The
presence of any further migratory barriers in close proximity to
the proposed construction site will also be determined. These
aspects are taken into account and the data are analysed using
various indices that quantify the need for a fishway to be
implemented (necessity and priority protocols).
If a fishway is found to be necessary, the fish species that are
observed during the fish survey as well as the habitat quality
will be used to determine the species of fish and size classes
that the proposed fishway would need to cater for. This data
are then utilised to determine the design and the dimensions of
the proposed fishway. This aspect requires that the fish
ecologists work in conjunction with the design and site
engineers.
Social
economic
and The Socio-economic Impact Assessment shall review and assess
the local socio-economic conditions in the area and potential
socio-economic benefits and risks of the development.
Furthermore, a needs analysis shall be derived from the study.
Tony Barbour –
Environmental
Consultant and
Researcher
Terms of Reference: Socio-economic Impact Assessment
i. Review of existing project information, including project Dr. Hugo van
and planning documents;
Zyl - Economist
ii. Identification of the components associated with the
proposed operation, including total capital expenditure,
number of employment opportunities created, breakdown
of the employment opportunities in terms of skill levels
(low, medium and high skilled), breakdown of wages per
skill level, assessment procurement policies etc.;
iii. Collection and review of reports and baseline socioeconomic data on the area (IDPs, Spatial Development
80
Frameworks etc.);
iv. Site visit and interviews with selected key affected parties,
including adjacent landowners and local authorities,
representatives from the local famer’s union etc.;
v. Identification and assessment of key social and socioeconomic issues;
vi. Consideration of existing land uses including tourism
related activities;
vii. Assessment of potential impacts (negative and positive)
associated with the construction and operational phase;
viii. Identification of potential mitigation and enhancement
measures;
ix. Preparation of Draft Report for comment;
x. Incorporate comments on Draft Report and prepare Final
Report.
Archaeology,
cultural
landscape,
artefacts, rock
art
The Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment is required to Karen
van
assess impacts caused by the proposed facility and inundation Ryneveld
–
area on heritage resources which may occupy the affected area. Archaeologist
A rock art survey is required to identify sites for inventorying in
a report for SAHRA. The location detail of these sites would
however be confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public,
as instructed by SAHRA.
Terms of Reference:
Assessment
i.
ii.
iii.
Phase
1
Archaeological
Impact
Conduct a pre-feasibility study which entails the desktop
review of the SAHRA 2009 Database, SAHRA Built
Environment Database – Northern Cape, the McGregor
Museum Archaeological Database and a general discussion
thereof;
A field assessment of the area affected by the proposed
hydropower site and inundation area in search of artefacts
of the Late Stone Age and Middle Stone Age;
The consolidation of desktop and field assessment data
into a report will be done, wherein impacts are identified,
discussed and appropriate mitigation measures given.
Terms of Reference: Rock Art Survey
i.
ii.
81
Conducting interviews with landowners to acquire local
knowledge, for an indication of where sites may be;
A walk-through of the inundation area will be conducted
iii.
Geology
fossils
investigate all areas potentially harbouring rock art;
The findings shall be compiled in an inventory which shall
be submitted to SAHRA and the McGregor Museum.
and A Phase 1 Paleontological Impact Assessment is to be Dr.
Lloyd
conducted to assess whether the proposed development site Rossouw
–
may harbour any sensitive geological formations which may Palaeontologist
contain fossilised remains.
Terms of Reference: Phase 1 Paleontological Impact
Assessment
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Visual
aesthetic,
landscape
features
Conduct a desktop review of 1:50 000 topographical maps;
A walk-through survey of the proposed development site
to determine underlying sediment and geological
formations, as well as to identify any indications of fossil
surface deposits;
Identify and map possible paleontological sites and
occurrences using available resources;
Determine and assess the potential impacts of the
proposed development on potential palaeontological
resources;
Recommend mitigation measures to minimize potential
impacts associated with the proposed development.
A Visual Impact Assessment is to be undertaken to assess Emmerentia
changes in views of the landscape that occur as a result of the Marais – GIS
proposed project.
Specialist
Terms of Reference: Visual Impact Assessment
i. Desktop analysis of aerial photography and existing
mapping information, including GIS and topographic
maps, to identify representative publicly accessible
viewpoints, potentially affected receptors and potential
local landscape character and visual context areas for site
assessment purposes;
ii. A site evaluation to verify the results of the desktop study
and provide more detailed information about the site and
likely impacts to arise. Publicly accessible and
representative viewpoints are to be confirmed, recorded
and photographed;
iii. A qualitative assessment of landscapes and visual impacts
of the proposed facility is then undertaken.
Professor
Francois
du
Toit – External
Reviewer
A chronological order of steps taken in the VIA can be described
as follows:
i. Describe the site context, location and environmental
characteristics;
82
ii. Describe and categorise the proposed development in
terms of accepted guidelines;
iii. Identify main view corridors and prepare a photographic
record;
iv. Undertake a viewshed analysis to identify and pick
observation points for the VIA;
v. Assess the potential visual impact of the proposed
development from selected observation points as per
normative measures and guidelines;
vi. Describe measures to mitigate potential significant
impacts and enhance positive impacts.
Resource and A Service Impact Assessment is to be undertaken to document Not
landscape
and describe the various services provided by the river and determined as
associated affected areas. The advantages and disadvantages of yet
services
the proposed development on these services must be assessed
and fair mitigation measures provided for.
Terms of Reference: Service Impact Assessment
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Cumulative
Impacts
Desktop review of services identified in the scoping
process;
Consideration of potential plans and management
strategies managing the affected resources;
Review the Socio-economic Impact Assessment for input
gained from interviews and engagement of local
communities and landowners, as well as business owners;
Identifying and describing each of the services;
Assess the likely impact that the proposed development
poses to each of these services using the same rating
methodology as described in the PoSEIA;
Establish mitigation and management measures to
address impacts;
Provide recommendations based on the outcomes of the
study.
A Cumulative Impact Assessment will assess the additive, Enviroworks –
interactive, sequential or synergistic relationship of impacts
which may result in one or several cumulative effects to the Environmental
Assessment
social and biophysical environment.
Practitioner
The following terms of reference was obtained from DEAT
(2004).
Terms of Reference: Cumulative Impact Assessment
i. Identify the significant cumulative effects and issues
associated with the proposed action and define the
assessment goals;
83
ii. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis;
iii. Establish the time frame for the analysis;
iv. Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems,
and human communities of concern;
v. Characterise the resources, ecosystems, and human
communities identified in scoping in terms of their
response to changes and capacity to withstand stresses;
vi. Characterise the stresses affecting these resources,
ecosystems, and human communities and their relation to
regulatory thresholds;
vii. Develop baseline conditions for the resources, ecosystems,
and human communities;
viii. Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships
between human activities and resources, ecosystems, and
human communities;
ix. Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative
effects;
x. Modify and add alternatives to avoid, minimise, or
mitigate significant cumulative effects;
xi. Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative
and adapt management.
Water
flow, As part of the Hydro Power Station (HPS) design a full
distribution and Hydrological Impact Assessment study will be conducted. The
river
study will be conducted by an independent hydrologist Mr
Jonathan Schroder (CV attached) that will consist of the
characteristics
following objectives:
Mr Jonathan
Schroder
–
Independent
hydrologist
Terms of Reference: Hydrological Impact Assessment
1. Determining stream flow hydrology based on available
river gauge data;
2. Flood hydrology and the impact that this will have on
the environment and the new structures proposed for
the HPS;
3. Determining evaporation loss from the Orange river
due to new weir;
4. Investigating the options for filling the new reservoir
and developing mitigation strategies to negate the
impact downstream of the weir;
5. Determining the energy yield for the hydro power
station including tail race water levels at varies flows;
6. Modelling the HPS in the river and understanding the
hydrology impact that this will have on the immediate
surroundings and downstream of the HPS. The model
will be based on the WRPM model from the
Department of Water Affairs (DWA);
7. Investigating alternatives and mitigation strategies for
any environmental hydrology impact that the scheme
might have;
8. Drafting a report on the hydrology study listing all the
options investigating, impacts on the environment and
84
the associated mitigation strategies;
9. Investigate the impact the scheme would have on
water quality, water temperature, oxygen content
compared with baseline (current) measurements (i.e.
entering and leaving the hydro facility). Mitigation of
any impacts on the quality of the water leaving the
facility compared to the water entering the facility must
be provided;
During the design of the HPS a Sedimentation study of the
actual sediment suspended in the river will be conducted.
The output from this study will be provided to the selected
hydro turbine supplier and requested to include sufficient
mitigation in the design to accommodate the suspended
solids. It is expected that the turbines and weir will reduce
the amount of suspended solids and the tailrace and water
outlets works will be designed to minimise the suspending
of solids. Accordingly it is expected that the HPS will result
in a reduction of the suspended solids.
The hydro turbine supplier will furthermore be requested
to include oil spill mitigation methods in the hydro
mechanical equipment to reduce the possible
contamination of the river with oil. The turbine supplier
will also be requested to supply the expected increase in
water temperature and to ensure that this will adhere to
the environment requirements. A specific report will be
compiled by the engineering house and submitted as part
of the environmental study that will consolidate all of the
hydro logy impact report findings and the turbine design
aspects on the environment.
6.1.2. Methodology for Assessment of Potential Impacts
The impacts will be evaluated by applying the methodology as described below. The impact is defined and the
significance is rated from Low to High as indicated in the table below with an explanation of the impact magnitude
and a guide that reflects the extent of the proposed mitigation measures deemed necessary.
For each potential impact, the EXTENT (spatial scale), MAGNITUDE, DURATION (time scale), PROBABILITY of
occurrence, IRREPLACEABLE loss of resources and the REVERSIBILITY of potential impacts must be assessed by the
specialist by using the results of their specialist studies. The assessment of the above criteria will be used to
determine the significance of each impact, with and without the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures. The scales to be used to assess these variables and to define the rating categories are tabulated in Table
10 and Table 12 below.
Table 11: Evaluation components, ranking scales and descriptions (criteria).
Evaluation
Ranking scale and description (criteria)
component
MAGNITUDE of
85
10 - Very high: Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be severely altered.
NEGATIVE IMPACT
(at the indicated
spatial scale)
8 - High: Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be considerably altered.
6 - Medium: Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be notably altered.
4 - Low : Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be slightly altered.
2 - Very Low: Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be negligibly altered.
0 - Zero: Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes will remain unaltered.
10 - Very high (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be
substantially enhanced.
8 - High (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be considerably
enhanced.
MAGNITUDE of
POSITIVE IMPACT (at
the indicated spatial
scale)
6 - Medium (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be notably
enhanced.
4 - Low (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be slightly enhanced.
2 - Very Low (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes might be negligibly
enhanced.
0 - Zero (positive): Bio-physical and/or social functions and/or processes will remain unaltered.
5 - Permanent
DURATION
4 - Long term: Impact ceases after operational phase/life of the activity > 60 years.
3 - Medium term: Impact might occur during the operational phase/life of the activity – 60 years.
2 - Short term: Impact might occur during the construction phase - < 3 years.
1 - Immediate
5 - International: Beyond National boundaries.
EXTENT
4 - National: Beyond Provincial boundaries and within National boundaries.
(or spatial
scale/influence of
impact)
3 - Regional: Beyond 5 km of the proposed development and within Provincial boundaries.
2 - Local: Within 5 km of the proposed development.
1 - Site-specific: On site or within 100 m of the site boundary.
0 - None
5 – Definite loss of irreplaceable resources.
4 – High potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.
IRREPLACEABLE loss
of resources
3 – Moderate potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.
2 – Low potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.
1 – Very low potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.
0 - None
5 – Impact cannot be reversed.
4 – Low potential that impact might be reversed.
REVERSIBILITY of
impact
3 – Moderate potential that impact might be reversed.
2 – High potential that impact might be reversed.
1 – Impact will be reversible.
0 – No impact.
5 - Definite: >95% chance of the potential impact occurring.
4 - High probability: 75% - 95% chance of the potential impact occurring.
PROBABILITY (of
occurrence)
3 - Medium probability: 25% - 75% chance of the potential impact occurring
2 - Low probability: 5% - 25% chance of the potential impact occurring.
1 - Improbable: <5% chance of the potential impact occurring.
Evaluation
component
86
Ranking scale and description (criteria)
High: The activity is one of several similar past, present or future activities in the same geographical
area, and might contribute to a very significant combined impact on the natural, cultural, and/or
socio-economic resources of local, regional or national concern.
CUMULATIVE
impacts
Medium: The activity is one of a few similar past, present or future activities in the same
geographical area, and might have a combined impact of moderate significance on the natural,
cultural, and/or socio-economic resources of local, regional or national concern.
Low: The activity is localised and might have a negligible cumulative impact.
None: No cumulative impact on the environment.
Once the evaluation components have been ranked for each potential impact, the significance of each potential impact will be
assessed (or calculated) using the following formula:
SP (significance points) = (magnitude + duration + extent + irreplaceable + reversibility) x probability
The maximum value is 150 SP (significance points). The unmitigated and mitigated scenarios for each potential environmental
impact should be rated as per Table 1 below.
Table 12: Definition of significance ratings (positive and negative).
Significance Points
125 – 150
Environmental
Significance
Very high (VH)
100 – 124
High (H)
75 – 99
Medium-high (MH)
40 – 74
87
Medium (M)
<40
Low (L)
+
Positive impact (+)
Description
An impact of very high significance will mean that the project
cannot proceed, and that impacts are irreversible, regardless of
available mitigation options.
An impact of high significance which could influence a decision
about whether or not to proceed with the proposed project,
regardless of available mitigation options.
If left unmanaged, an impact of medium-high significance could
influence a decision about whether or not to proceed with a
proposed project. Mitigation options should be relooked.
If left unmanaged, an impact of moderate significance could
influence a decision about whether or not to proceed with a
proposed project.
An impact of low is likely to contribute to positive decisions
about whether or not to proceed with the project. It will have
little real effect and is unlikely to have an influence on project
design or alternative motivation.
A positive impact is likely to result in a positive
consequence/effect, and is likely to contribute to positive
decisions about whether or not to proceed with the project.
(a) Impacts that may result from the planning, design and Construction Phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation
and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the planning, design and Construction Phase.
Table 13: Example of Impact Assessment Table to be used
(Note: Evaluation components: M – Magnitude; D – Duration; E – Extent; R - Reversibility; I - Irreplaceable; P – Probability; S - Significance)
Refer to Section G, Table 1: Evaluation components, ranking scales and descriptions (criteria) and to Table 2: Definition of Significance Ratings.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CUMULATIVE
Significance
TOTAL (SP)
Probability
Reversibility
Irreplaceable
Extent
Duration
Magnitude
CUMULATIVE
Significance
AFTER MITIGATION
TOTAL (SP)
Probability
Reversibility
Irreplaceable
Extent
Duration
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
Magnitude
BEFORE MITIGATION
POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT / NATURE OF
IMPACT
MITIGATION
Potential Impacts on
geographical and
physical aspects
Project activity:
Planning and design
Preferred
Alternative and
Layout
Alternative 2
E.g. The change of
land use from
vacant to General
Industrial purposes.
“No-go”
alternative
E.g. The land use will
not change and the
site will remain
unchanged, i.e.
vacant and underutilized. No general
industrial
development and
job opportunities in
the area.
88
-
0
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
45
-
M
-
M
10+
2
5
5
3
2
3
1
1
1
5
3
110
33
H
(+)
L
H
(+)
L
E.g. Optimise the
design to create as
many development
opportunities
as
possible to alleviate
the
shortage
of
zoned
general
industrial
land
in
proximity
to
the
Cape
Town
Metropole.
E.g. The only
mitigation to be
applied will be the
eradication of alien
vegetation.
6.1.3. Public Participation
A continued public participation process is to be undertaken with Interested and Affected Parties,
including Organs of State, identified during the Scoping Phase (in accordance with Regulation 54 to
57 of GNR543 of the EIA Regulations, 2010). It is in this process that participants receive the
opportunity to review reports and provide comments for consideration in the Impact Assessment
phase.
Opportunities to participate during the Impact Assessment Phase will arise on two occasions.
6.1.3.1. Consultation on the Draft EIR
The first is on circulation of the Draft EIR, the availability of which shall be made known to all
registered I&APs, Organs of State and stakeholders. All parties will have 40 calendar days during
which to comment on this report. A copy of the Draft EIR shall be couriered to the Thembelihle Local
Municipality, located on Church Street in Hopetown, and will be on display for public viewing during
this period. Should the need for a public meeting arise, all parties will be notified of the details
regarding this meeting at least 14 calendar days in advance. Should any meetings take place,
minutes will be kept of the proceedings and these included in the CRR of the Final EIR.
All public comments will be worked into the CRR, which shall provide a summary of issues raised and
response given by the EAP and project team. Should comments reflect the need for revisions in the
draft report, these shall be addressed. The draft report will be finalised for a final comment period.
6.1.3.2. Consultation on the Final EIR
Once the Final EIR is ready for circulation, all registered I&APs will have 21 calendar days in which to
comment on the Final EIR. Simultaneously, this report shall be submitted to the DEA for
commencement of the decision-making process. On completion of the 21 day period, all comments
received will be assembled and sent to the DEA for consideration in their decision making process.
6.2. Communication with the DEA (Competent Authority)
Table 16 below provides the stages at which the competent authority (DEA) will be consulted during
the scoping and impact assessment phases of this EIA process.
During the EIA phase, consultation shall take place with the DEA in the form of the submission of a
Draft EIR and Final EIR for review, submission of comments from I&APs following completion of a 21
day comment period after circulation of the Final EIR and follow up. Ad hoc correspondence with the
DEA may take place, should technical clarification or guidance be required on materials relating to
the assessment process. A schedule of communication may be as follows:
Table 14: Stages at which the DEA will be
consulted
Project Phase/Stage
Scoping Phase
Submission of Draft Scoping Report
Submission of Final Scoping Report
Submission of Amended Final Scoping Report
Impact Assessment Phase
Submission of Draft Environmental Impact Report and
EMPr
Submission of Final Environmental Impact Report and
EMPr
90
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, although there are no environmental fatal flaws identified during the Scoping Phase,
there are a number of potentially significant environmental impacts that require the attention of
specialists in their specific fields. A detailed Environmental Impact Assessment is therefore required
to further investigate and assess these potential impacts and to recommend appropriate mitigation
measures, where required.
A period of 40 days will be made available for public comment on the amended Final Scoping Report.
The availability of the amended Final Scoping Report will be announced through the distribution of
letters, faxes and e-mails to all the registered I&APs on the I&AP Register. In addition, a copy of the
report will be placed at the reception of the Thembelihle Local Municipal office on Church Street in
Hopetown. Downloadable versions will be available on the Enviroworks website:
http://www.enviroworks.co.za/projectdownloads.php.
7.1. Way forward
The envisaged key milestones of the programme for the Environmental Impact Assessment phase of
the proposed project are outlined in the table below. These are indicative dates for the remainder of
the process.
Table 15: Key Milestones
Project Phase/Stage
Scoping Phase
Public review period for the Final Scoping Report
Submit amended Final Scoping Report and Plan of Study to DEA
Undertake detailed specialist studies
DEA decision on amended Final Scoping Report
Impact Assessment Phase
Circulation of the Draft EIR to the public for 40 days
Incorporate comments and circulate Final EIR to the public for 21 days and
submit to the DEA for decision making
Submit comments received from I&APs to DEA
DEA review and issue Environmental Decision
91
LIST OF REFERENCES
DEAT (2002) Scoping, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 2, Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.
DEAT (2004) Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information
Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.
Department of Energy. 2012. IPP Procurement Programme. [Retrieved on September 3 2013]
Available at: http://www.ipprenewables.co.za/ [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Department of Minerals and Energy. 2003. White Paper on Renewable Energy. [Online]. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/seminar/application/pdf/sem_sup1_south_africa.pdf. [Retrieved on
September 2 2013]
Electricity Regulation Act (No. 4 of 2006). 2006. Republic of South Africa. Government Gazette No.
28992. [Online]. Available at: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=67855.
[Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Fouche, C. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the proposed development of a
Hydropower Scheme (Lower Kruisvallei) on the Farm Kruisvallei 190 and a Portion of the Farm
Middelvallei 130, Magisterial District of Bethlehem, Free State Province. [Unpublished]. Available at:
Enviroworks, Suite 338, Private Bag X01, Brandhof, 9324.
Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030 (Final Report). 2011. Department of Energy.
[Online].
Available
at:
http://www.energy.gov.za/IRP/irp%20files/IRP2010_2030_Final_Report_20110325.pdf. [Retrieved
on September 2 2013]
Integrated Development Plan 2012-2013. Thembelihle Local Municipality. [Online]. Available at:
http://thembelihlemunicipality.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IDP-2013-14-Tabling-March2013.pdf. [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Local Economic Development Strategy. 2012. Thembelihle Local Municipality. [Online]. Available at:
http://thembelihlemunicipality.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Thembelihle-LED-Strategyfinal.pdf. [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No. 28 of 2002). 2002. Republic of South
Africa.
Government
Gazette
No.
23922.
[Online].
Available
at:
http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=68062. [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
South African National Biodiversity Institute
National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 if 1999). 1999. Republic of South Africa. Government
Gazette
No.
36777.
[Online].
Available
at:
https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjA
EOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.za%2Fdocuments%2Fdownload.php%3Ff%3D197318&ei=gbw
pUtu8DImrhQeC_YGoBw&usg=AFQjCNGdVPxew-0-
92
uZy0zLpsN_JSad4wuA&sig2=LntkpJgG0LNEbqkeSWZEgQ&bvm=bv.51773540,d.d2k. [Retrieved on
September 2 2013]. [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
National Water Act (No 36 of 1998). 1998. Republic of South Africa. Government Gazette No. 19182.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=70693. [Retrieved on
September 2 2013]
Northern Cape Provincial Growth and Development Strategy. 2008. Northern Cape Provincial
Government.
[Online].
Available
at:
http://www.francesbaard.gov.za/documents/2011/NCPGDS%20FINAL.pdf. [Retrieved on September
2 2013]
Northern Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework. 2012. Northern Cape Provincial
Government. [Online]. Available at: http://northerncapepsdf.co.za/. [Retrieved on September 2
2013]
Paish, O. 2002. Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews: 6 (2002) 537-556.
Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality. 2011. Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality Integrated
Development
Plan
for
2011-2016.
[Online].
Available
at:
http://pixley.co.za/documents/IDP/Final%20IDP%202011-2016.pdf. [Retrieved on September 2
2013]
Principle of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice." International Association for Impact
Assessment. 1999
Republic of South Africa. 1996. Constitution of South Africa (No 108. of 1996). [Online]. Available at:
http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/a108-96.pdf. [Retrieved on September 2
2013]
Ross, M. (2013) Aquatic & Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Survey – Sept 2013. Prepared for Sidala
Energy Solutions (Pty) Ltd, Proposed North & South Hydro Power Facilities, Orange River, Northern
Cape. [Unpublished]
Strategic Plan 2011-2016. Siyancuma Local Municipality. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.siyancuma.gov.za/siyancuma/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=122
&Itemid=22. [Retrieved on September 2 2013]
Van der Merwe, D. (ed) 2013. Pre-feasibility study of the Orange River Hydroelectric Project –
Tullochgorum site, Volume 1. [Unpublished].
93
APPENDICES
Appendix A: CVs
Appendix B: DEA Letters
Appendix C: Comment and Response Report
Appendix D: Maps
Appendix E: Site Layout Plan
Appendix F: Inundation Contours
Appendix G: Photo Report

Rooikat Hydro Power Site - South African Heritage Resources

Transcription

Similar documents

0859 SKY 11 BB H - Sky Lake Sions Loft

Controlled sinking of a caisson in a weak rock The Peruća dam in

A Greek Grammar for Colleges

Dam water Intake

Advert placed in the Mossel Bay Advertiser, 16 May 2008

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District

Energirådet Fornybar energi - store muligheter i

Chesaning